Participation in community-based activities of daily living: Comparison of a pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair and a power wheelchair
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pushrim-activated, power-assisted wheelchair (PPW) performance among dual-users in their natural environment to determine whether the PPW would serve as a satisfactory alternative to a power wheelchair for community-based activities. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods research design using a cross-over trial was used. The outcome measures used were number of hours reported using the different wheelchairs, Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST), Functioning Everyday with a Wheelchair (FEW), Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS) and Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). RESULTS: The number of hours spent participating in self-identified activities was not significantly different. Only the Self-Esteem subscale of the PIADS identified a statistically significant difference between the PPW and power wheelchair conditions (p = 0.016). A clinically important difference for Performance and Satisfaction was suggested by the COPM, in favour of the power wheelchair. CONCLUSIONS: Additional knowledge was gained about the benefits of PPW technology. Participants were able to continue participating independently in their self-identified community activities using the PPW, and identified comparable ratings of satisfaction and performance with the PPW and the power wheelchair. For some individuals requiring power mobility, the PPW may provide an alternative to the power 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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