MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146276747 · doi:10.1080/09638280500030530

Adaptation of a seated postural control measure for adult wheelchair users

2005· article· en· W2146276747 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte Gagnon, Claude Vincent, Luc Noreau

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyScale (ratio)Physical therapyAdaptation (eye)SittingOrdinal ScaleComputer scienceMedicineMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Clinical measures of seated postural control in adults are not standardized and most are derived from in-house tools. The purpose of this study is to adapt a pediatric instrument to evaluate seated postural control in adult wheelchair users. METHOD: The new instrument is called the Seated Postural Control Measure for Adults (SPCMA) 1.0. Five preliminary versions were pretested with some 20 adults by two raters and a group of experts. RESULTS: This instrument comprises three sections: Section 1, level of sitting scale for adults (1 item, 7-point ordinal scale); Section 2, static postural alignment (22 items, 7-point ordinal scale); and Section 3, postural alignment after a dynamic activity, propulsion of the wheelchair on flat terrain and an incline (22 items, 7-point ordinal scale). CONCLUSIONS: The SPCMA for Adults 1.0 improves the quality and uniformity of evaluations done by different raters, which facilitates more rigorous follow-up of clients over time, communication between professionals, and objective verification of the attainment of intervention objectives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207