Exploring the ecological validity and variability of a 10-min bout of wheeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the ecological validity of using able-bodied participants to perform a 10-min wheeling trial by (1) evaluating changes in biomechanics over the trial in manual wheelchair users and able-bodied participants naïve to wheeling and (2) describing differences in changes and variability between groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Manual wheelchair users (n = 7, 2-27 years' experience) and able-bodied participants (n = 11) wheeled for 10 min. Kinetic and temporal variables were collected and averaged over each minute, while wheeling strategy (movement pattern) was categorized at minutes 1 and 10. RESULTS: There was a main effect of time for push angle, and a main effect of group for average push angle, tangential force and total force. Manual wheelchair users used larger push angles and forces compared to able-bodied participants. Surprisingly, intercycle variability did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Using able-bodied participants to represent manual wheelchair users performing a 10-min wheeling trial is not ecologically valid and caution should be used when interpreting push angle and forces applied to the pushrim. Considering that push angle was the only variable that demonstrated a main effect of time, long durations (e.g., 10 min) of wheeling may be appropriate for use in study designs acknowledging potential changes in wheeling strategy and push angle. Implications for Rehabilitation Some experienced wheelchair users and non-wheelchair users modify their movement pattern from an arc to a circular pattern within a 10-min wheeling trial. There are clear biomechanical differences in push angle and forces applied to the pushrim between wheelchair users with experience and able-bodied non-wheelchair users. Able-bodied participants who have no prior manual wheeling experience are no more variable than long-term wheelchair users. Variability may play an important role in wheelchair propulsion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".