Evaluation of manual wheelchairs by individuals with spinal cord injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate how adults with spinal cord injury assess their satisfaction regarding various aspects and use of their manual wheelchair. METHOD: The Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) together with seven additional questions was sent to 205 adults with SCI. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-four responses were available. The QUEST 2.0 showed a high level of satisfaction with manual wheelchair properties. However, the respondents were less satisfied with the services offered. Ease of use and comfort were identified as most important. Eighty-nine percent of the respondents rated their level of satisfaction as 'quite satisfied' or 'very satisfied' in ease of using a manual wheelchair compared with 68% of the respondents that were 'quite satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with the level of comfort. A greater satisfaction of ease in propulsion indoors compared with sitting comfort in various activities was found. CONCLUSIONS: A discrepancy was shown between users not being as satisfied with comfort in sitting in various activities opposed to satisfaction with propulsion. This indicates the need for increased knowledge and developments concerning individual solutions, incorporating comfort as well as ease of use of a manual wheelchair.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".