MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144383991 · doi:10.1109/tnsre.2001.1000116

Kinematic modeling for the assessment of wheelchair user's stability

2001· article· en· W2144383991 on OpenAlexaff
D. Pavec, Carl‐Éric Aubin, Rachid Aïssaoui, François Parent, J. Dansereau

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsStiffnessRevolute jointWheelchairStructural engineeringTransverse planeInverse dynamicsTrunkJoint (building)EngineeringSimulationComputer scienceMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computer kinematic model was developed to simulate the lateral and transverse stabilities of wheelchair users in order to compare the effect of different backrests. This model is composed of ellipsoids and parallelepipeds representing the main components of the human body, the seating devices and the wheelchair. A fifteen-segment three-dimensional (3-D) model linked by spherical and revolute joints was created using the ADAMS software (Mechanical Dynamics, Inc.). Torsional springs and dampers are used at the joints to represent four sets of articulation stiffness. Seating devices are represented with 45 rectangular surface patches. The interface between human body and seating devices is modeled by contact elements, which included the specification of stiffness, damping, and deformation of cushions and buttocks. Simulations of a user and his wheelchair moving at 1.4 m/s on a tilted pathway were performed. Different indexes [trunk lateral tilt (TLT) and trunk transverse rotation (TTR)] were measured and compared to those of a similar experimental study on four subjects. The effect of joint stiffness was quantified and a sensitivity study showed the importance of the hip, neck, lumbar, and thoracic joint stiffness on model response (between 16% and 68%). Two backrests (standard and highly contoured) were tested with the kinematic model and their stability compared. Overall, the coherence between the simulations and the experiments shows that this approach is appropriate to compare various seating devices (maximal difference of 1.3 degrees between the simulated and experimental curves for the intermediate joint stiffness sets). The smallest rotations of the highly contoured backrest (6.3 degrees versus 8.9 degrees for TLT and 3.9 degrees versus 6.7 degrees for TTR) suggest that the contouring of the mid torso is more efficient than the lower torso to provide stability to the wheelchair user. This model is an adequate tool to test and improve the design of seating aids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation EngineeringSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207