MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102141110 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2007.4353404

Occupational Therapists' Evaluation of Haptic Motor Rehabilitation

2007· article· en· W2102141110 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueConference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyRehabilitationVirtual realityComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionGraphical user interfacePhysical medicine and rehabilitationVirtual machineSimulationPhysical therapyMedicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haptic-based virtual rehabilitation systems have recently become a subject of interest. In addition to the benefits provided by virtual rehabilitation, the haptic-based systems offer force and tactile feedback which can be for upper and lower extremity rehabilitation. In this paper, we present a system that uses haptics, in conjunction with virtual environments, to provide a rich media environment for motor rehabilitation of stroke patients. The system also provides Occupational Therapists (OTs) with a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that enables them to configure the hardware and virtual exercises and to monitor patients' performance. We also present an analysis of the system by a group of OTs from the Ottawa General Hospital, Rehabilitation Center. The OT's feedback, both the positives and negatives, and the results of the assessment test are also presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it