Perceptions of Power Mobility Use and Safety within Residential Facilities
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
BACKGROUND: Power wheelchairs enhance quality of life by enabling occupation, improving self-esteem and facilitating social interaction. Despite these benefits, the risks associated with power mobility use raise serious concerns in residential facilities. PURPOSE: As there is no gold standard to assess when a client is unsafe, a two-phase study was conducted to develop client-centred guidelines for power mobility use. METHOD: In the first phase of the study, presented here, 18 in-depth, qualitative interviews were conducted with a variety of stakeholders, including power mobility users, other residents, staff and family members. RESULTS: A thematic analysis of the interviews revealed four main themes: 1) the meaning of power mobility, 2) learning the rules of the road, 3) red flags: concerns about safety, and 4) solutions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Given the importance of power mobility, safety measures need to address issues of mobility and safety for power mobility drivers and those around them.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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