MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158574785 · doi:10.1177/2327857914031000

Ecological Interface Design for Knee and Hip Automatic Physiotherapy Assistant and Rehabilitation System

2014· article· en· W2158574785 on OpenAlexafffund
Yeti Li, Catherine M. Burns, Dana Kulić

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRehabilitationInterface (matter)Domain (mathematical analysis)Computer scienceAutomationWork (physics)Interface designProcess (computing)Human–computer interactionUser interfacePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we report on a recent interface design and evaluation process for a new knee and hip automatic physiotherapy assistant and rehabilitation system (ARS). Interface design was concurrent with the development of ARS. The ARS has the potential to improve the automation of rehabilitation treatments, by providing quantitative measures of a patient’s motion. However, the complexity of rehabilitation information available to the therapist has increased with this additional information. We applied Ecological Interface Design (EID) to understand the domain of physiotherapy and the role of the automation. Results of a Work Domain Analysis (WDA) revealed new functions and constraints in rehabilitation now accessible through the ARS, and provided the design requirements for interface design. A novel interface was designed which is currently undergoing evaluation to see if it improves the quality and experience of physiotherapy. This study provides an example of the advantages of using EID at the early phase of design, and how to apply EID to a system of increasing automaticity.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health CareSame topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207