Concept proposal for a detachable exoskeleton-wheelchair to improve mobility and health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair use has consequences to quality of life in at least two areas: 1) health issues such as pressure sores and chronic overuse injury; and 2) access problems due to the inaccessible nature of the built and natural environments that are most amenable to upright postures. Even with these concerns, wheelchairs are still the best form of mobility for many people (e.g. they are relatively easy to transfer into and propel). However, wheelchairs are simply not transformative, i.e. they do not allow a person with a disability to attain a level of mobility performance that approaches that of their non-disabled peers, nor do they typically allow for face to face interactions and full participation in the community. Wheelchairs also do not typically support ongoing therapeutic benefits for the user. To address the inadequacy of existing wheelchairs, we are merging two evolving technologies into a coherent new mobility device. The first is dynamic wheeled mobility, which adds significant functionality to conventional wheelchairs through the use of on-the-fly adjustable positioning. The second is powered walking exoskeletons, which enable highly desired standing and walking functions, as well as therapeutic benefits associated with rehabilitation gait training. Unfortunately, exoskeletons have significant usability concerns such as slow speed, limited range, potential to cause skin issues, and difficult transfers. A new concept of docking a detachable exoskeleton to a wheeled frame has been developed to address these issues. The design goal is a single mobility device that not only optimizes daily activities (i.e. wheelchair seating and propulsion with dynamic positioning), but also serves as an easy-to-use rehabilitation tool for therapeutic benefits (i.e. a detachable powered exoskeleton for walking sojourns). This has significant potential benefits for the lives of people with mobility impairments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".