MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608656908 · doi:10.1109/thms.2017.2706727

A Comprehensive Review of Smart Wheelchairs: Past, Present, and Future

2017· review· en· W2608656908 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jesse Leaman, Hung Manh La

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of KentUniversité de LorraineNational Research Council CanadaUniversidade de Aveiro
KeywordsWheelchairAssistive technologyComputer scienceData scienceEngineering ethicsHuman–computer interactionEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A smart wheelchair (SW) is a power wheelchair (PW) to which computers, sensors, and assistive technology are attached. In the past decade, there has been little effort to provide a systematic review of SW research. This paper aims to provide a complete state-of-the-art overview of SW research trends. We expect that the information gathered in this study will enhance awareness of the status of contemporary PW as well as SW technology and increase the functional mobility of people who use PWs. We systematically present the international SW research effort, starting with an introduction to PWs and the communities they serve. Then, we discuss in detail the SW and associated technological innovations with an emphasis on the most researched areas, generating the most interest for future research and development. We conclude with our vision for the future of SW research and how to best serve people with all types of disabilities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations245
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Human-Machine SystemsSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207