Power Mobility Driving Training for Seniors: A Pilot Study
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
This article describes two power mobility training protocols used with seniors and compares posttraining driving performance. Twelve users of power mobility were consecutively recruited from two residential facilities in Toronto, Canada. The aim of training at both sites was to make clients comfortable with and safe at driving power mobility devices. The content of training was similar, but training protocols differed significantly in terms of the number of sessions (means of 3.43 vs. 9.80; p < or = .05) and the time frame over which the sessions were offered (means of 1.57 vs. 5.10 weeks; p < or = .01). Participants at the two sites differed significantly in terms of overall driving performance (p < or = .05), gender (p < or = .01), and type of device used (p < or = .05). Overall, driving performance was significantly associated with facility, gender, type of device used, and training duration (p < or = .05). When these variables were entered into an exploratory hierarchical regression, facility accounted for 64% of the variance in driving performance. When facility was controlled for, the correlations between device and duration of training with driving performance were no longer significant. The determinants of driving performance are difficult to clearly specify as the variable facility encompasses gender as well as all other differences between the two training protocols. Nevertheless, these data provide direction for future research in this area.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it