Effects of camber on wheeling efficiency in the experienced and inexperienced wheelchair user
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
The objective of this study was to determine whether energy costs differed between 0 degrees , 3 degrees , and 6 degrees of camber during steady state overground wheeling. Three subject groups were examined: experienced wheelchair users with disabilities (thoracic lesion level 6 and below), nondisabled individuals with manual wheeling experience, and nondisabled individuals with no manual wheeling experience. Heart rate, rating of perceived exertion, visual analog scale for comfort, and a user preference questionnaire were collected for all subjects. Expired gas analysis data were collected for the group with disabilities. No statistically significant differences emerged in respiratory measures for camber angle or group. A camber of 6 degrees was most preferred in terms of stability on a side slope, hand comfort on the pushrims, maneuverability, and overall preference. Rear-wheel camber angle did not affect the energy expenditure of manual wheelchair propulsion, as measured by cardiopulmonary means. The individual manual wheelchair user's perceived level of comfort should be the determining factor in rear-wheel camber selection.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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