The Manual Ability Classification System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Purpose: To examine the use of the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) and to identify gaps in the literature by conducting a thorough search of existing publications from 2006 to March 2013. Methods: An extensive literature search included 15 databases, using the search terms “Manual Ability Classification System” or “MACS” to retrieve relevant abstracts. Results: A total of 161 articles were identified for final inclusion. The review identified literature that supports the reliability, validity, and stability of the MACS. Conclusions: The MACS could be considered as a standard classification for children with cerebral palsy on the basis of manual abilities. The MACS can be reliably used for children between 4 and 18 years and adults between 18 and 24 years. The use of the MACS is expected to increase; further work is required to explore the use of the MACS in clinical practice. The authors describe reports of use of the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) in research and professional literature. Further study of clinical adoption of the MACS is needed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".