Powered Tilt/Recline Systems: Why and How Are They Used?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prolonged static sitting can lead to discomfort, pain, pressure sores, spinal curvatures, and loss of functional independence. In order to counteract these harmful effects, adjustable tilt and/or recline systems are often prescribed. Considering the current context of assistive technology service delivery and budget cuts, it is essential to have a better knowledge of the use of these technical aids and user's satisfaction with them. The purpose of this study was to characterize the use of powered tilt and recline systems. A questionnaire was developed for this purpose, and 40 subjects were interviewed at home. They were asked to identify, from a list of 25 objectives, the reasons for which they used their repositioning system and to rank these reasons in order of importance. For each objective, they were also asked to identify the frequency and range of use as well as their satisfaction level with their system. Results revealed that 97.5% of the subjects were using their powered tilt and recline system everyday, and their satisfaction was high. The main objectives for using this type of assistive technology were to increase comfort and to promote rest. Although mainly descriptive, results are of clinical relevance and can be helpful when selecting wheelchairs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it