Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction This study is part of a program to investigate the function of prosthetic arm systems, specifically the new generation multifunction hands. Materials and Methods The Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure was used to measure the relative performance of a range of commercial multifunction prosthetic hands. To compare different designs of hands, a single subject was used with repeated measures. Hands from Touch Bionics (i-limb), Steeper (BeBionic), and Ottobock (Michelangelo) were tested and compared with the most effective single degree of freedom hand (Motion Control), as measured in a previous study. Results The overall performance of the Motion Control hand (94) was a significantly higher score than the Ottobock (89) ( P > 0.05); the other two hands also had lower Overall scores (Touch Bionics, 81; Steeper, 83). When the individual grip scores are normalized against the Overall score, the Tips grips for all hands showed a much poorer value than the other grips (Steeper, 0.77; Touch Bionics, 0.73; and Ottobock, 0.82). Conclusions All three hands were more anthropomorphic in action and appearance than the earlier hands, but this did not result in greater function than the simpler fixed geometry hands.
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".