Reflections on rehabilitation engineering history: are there lessons to be learned?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This author’s perspective is possibly unique among the other contributors to this volume because he witnessed the early evolution of rehabilitation engineering in Canada and the United States, first working as a young clinical rehabilitation engineer and later as an academic researcher in both countries. This contribution focuses largely on the Canadian contribution, with emphasis on the political backdrop that created the impetus and funding for program development and the productive partnerships that lead to significant early outcomes. Of course, as with the evolution of any field, key people with vision stepped forward to provide the leadership. These individuals should not be forgotten. Their commitment and contribution to the formation of the field was paramount— and possibly not without equal to this day. Recognition of the early pioneers is not intended to be all-inclusive; it is limited by the personal experiences of the author and largely from the Canadian perspective. In order to provide the reader with a time frame and career activities that largely influenced the following perspectives, a brief review of this author’s education and work experiences follows. • Education: Mechanical Engineering, 1965, University of Manitoba, PhD, University of Strathclyde, 1989. • 1963–68: Research Engineer, Prosthetic and Orthotic Research and Development Unit (PORDU), Manitoba Rehabilitation Center, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. (Development of lower-limb modular prosthesis and mobility devices for thalidomide children.) • 1969: Research Associate, Biomedical Research Unit, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick. (Upper-limb myoelectric prosthetics.) • 1970–74: Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Program, Shriners Hospital, Winnipeg Unit, Canada. (Development of seating and mobility devices for children and development and provision of prosthetics and orthotics and RE client services.) • 1974–90: Director, Rehabilitation Engineering Center, University of Tennessee, Memphis. (Development of seating, mobility, prosthetic and orthotic technologies for children, provision of prosthetics and orthotics and RE services.) • 1990–92: Founding President, ARCOR, Winnipeg, Canada. (Nonprofit, government-funded organization for the purpose of developing and marketing technology for the elderly.) • 1992–96: Director, Center for Assistive Technology, University of Pittsburgh. (Development and management of assistive technology service center.) • 1992–01: Associate Professor, Codirector, RERC on Wheeled Mobility, University of Pittsburgh. (Academic research, teaching and administration of RERC on wheeled mobility.) Reflection on the past can also provide knowledge and insights that can guide us in the present. Of particular interest to this author are the political and social environments,
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".