Body Functions and Structures Pertinent to Infrared Thermography-Based Access for Clients With Severe Motor Disabilities
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
Infrared thermography has been recently proposed as an access technology for individuals with disabilities, but body functions and structures pertinent to its use have not been documented. Seven clients (2 adults, 5 youth) with severe disabilities and their primary caregivers participated in this study. All clients had a Gross Motor Functional Classification System (GMFCS) level of 5, but each possessed a unique set of extant physical movements. We tested the clients' ability to activate the infrared thermal access technology via a cued mouth open-close exercise. In addition, the clients or their primary caregivers were interviewed for descriptive information about the clients' physical, cognitive, and sensory function; communication skills; medical background; and history of switch use. Several impairments were identified as contraindications to infrared thermal access, spanning physiological (e.g., frequent fluctuations in body temperature, seizures, pain), motor (e.g., poor trunk control, involuntary movements, atypical mouth posture), and sensory/cognitive (e.g., inconsistent contingency awareness) subdomains. We identified key impairments in body functions and structures that limit infrared thermography-based access. Potential changes to the access technology (e.g., software and hardware) and physical environment to overcome those limitations are suggested.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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