Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To develop a low cost, safe, intuitive, and reusable post-operative lower leg support that can be delivered rapidly and usable for several months with minimal maintenance. Methods: The lower leg support consists of a removable contoured pad secured to a support surface. This surface is attached to a double ball and socket arm which allows six degrees of freedom of movement. The double ball and socket joint is attached to the client’s wheelchair using a “U-bolt” type clamp. Results: The lower leg supports have been used clinically 14 times since September 2008. Financial records indicate the construction costs of each lower leg support are approximately $150 CDN ($90 parts, $60 Labour) which is below the $300 CDN limit for post-operative seating modifications in BC. Re-using these supports for other clients only increases their cost effectiveness. The intuitive operation of the lower leg supports enables quick and easy adjustment of the individual leg supports. Caregivers and community clinicians have used the leg supports during convalescence then returned them to be re-used. Conclusions: The functional longevity, easy installation, low cost and intuitive operation makes these leg supports suitable for post-operative lower leg positioning.Implications for RehabilitationRapid delivery of safe custom lower leg supports on the client’s own mobility aid reduces client and caregiver anxiety, meets the demands of rapid post-operative therapy and enables quick discharges when medically stable.Recycling and low construction and maintenance costs of these reusable lower leg support pads increases cost effectiveness.Adaptable mounting and positioning options reduces the need to maintain stock of mobility aids and seating systems.Intuitive operation reduces need for specialized clinician and caregiver training.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".