The manual wheelchair wheelie: A review of our current understanding of an important motor skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the current understanding of the manual wheelchair wheelie. METHOD: Review of the literature. RESULTS: A rear wheelchair wheelie occurs when the front wheels, ordinarily in contact with the support surface, are intentionally caused, by means of a transient or sustainable rear pitch, to lift from the surface while the rear wheels remain on the surface. Pitch control (partial or full) is the foundation of many wheelchair skills (e.g., negotiating thresholds, potholes, curbs, steep inclines and gravel). Yet, most wheelchair users never learn to perform this valuable skill. Wheelie capability is affected by the characteristics of the clinician, the wheelchair user, the wheelchair and the environment. Although our understanding of wheelie biomechanics and training methods is evolving, much remains to be learned. Three recent wheelchair developments have wheelie-related implications: a new type of rear anti-tip device (Arc-RAD) that permits wheelie-like function, pushrim-activated power-assisted wheelchairs (PAPAWs) that make wheelie-dependent skills more dangerous and difficult, and a powered wheelchair that has robotic wheelie capabilities (the IBOT). CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in our understanding of the nature of wheelies, formalization of training protocols and innovations in wheelchair design hold promise for improved activities and participation by wheelchair users.
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 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".