The manual wheelchair wheelie: A review of our current understanding of an important motor skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dr. R. Lee Kirbya*, Dr. R. Lee Kirbya*, Cher Smithb, Roxanne Seamanc, Donald A. Macleodd & Kim Parkerea Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canadab Department of Occupational Therapy, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canadac School of Kinesiology, Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, Canadad Clinical Locomotor Function Laboratory, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canadae Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, CanadaDisclosures: R. Lee Kirby has had a consulting relationship with Independence Technology in the past, a Johnson & Johnson company that markets one of the products mentioned in this paper (the IBOT). He hopes to commercialize another mentioned product (the Arc-RAD in the future).† Correspondence: Dr.R. Lee Kirby, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Nova Scotia Rehabilitation Centre Site, 1341 Summer Street, Halifax, NS, Canada, B3H 4K4, 1 902 473 1268, 1 902 473 3204 kirby@dal.ca† Correspondence: Dr.R. Lee Kirby, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Nova Scotia Rehabilitation Centre Site, 1341 Summer Street, Halifax, NS, Canada, B3H 4K4, 1 902 473 1268, 1 902 473 3204 kirby@dal.caPurpose. 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".