Walking tasks encountered by urban-dwelling adults and persons with incomplete spinal cord injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Gait retraining should target the walking skills most needed for independence in the home and community. The main objective of this study was to document the walking tasks most commonly encountered in daily life by able-bodied adults. The study also compared participation in walking tasks between able-bodied adults and persons with incomplete spinal cord injuries. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 50 able-bodied adults and 16 ambulatory, community-dwelling persons with incomplete spinal cord injuries. METHODS: A walking survey was developed, and its content validity and concurrent validity confirmed. Participants used the survey to document the frequency with which walking tasks were encountered during a full waking day. RESULTS: Frequently encountered tasks included walking on smooth and rough surfaces, opening/closing doors and carrying objects. Tasks encountered more than once per day by the majority of able-bodied participants included negotiating obstacles, walking on uneven and sloped surfaces, in crowded environments, narrow spaces, and on steps and stairs. Participants with spinal cord injuries encountered fewer tasks, including many of those frequently encountered by able-bodied participants. CONCLUSION: The findings identify the important walking tasks for ambulation in the home and community. These tasks should be included in therapy programs aiming to retrain functional walking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".