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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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