The role of clothing in participation of persons with a physical disability: a scoping review protocol
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Clothing is an important aspect of nearly all human societies from performing social and cultural functions to indicating social status, a form of protection and a way for self-expression. It can help or hinder the ability to fulfil everyday activities and social roles and with the rising industry of wearable technologies, smart textiles are adding health-monitoring functions to clothing. The influence that clothing can have on the life of someone with a physical disability is significant, and further research is needed to understand it better. To achieve this, a scoping review will be performed with the aim of understanding the role of clothing in participation (ie, at home, in the community, etc) of individuals with a physical disability. This article presents the protocol and procedure to be adopted. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An in-depth iterative analysis of the scientific literature from six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO and ERIC) as well as a hand search of grey literature and reference lists will be performed. After an abstract and full-text review of references by three reviewers independently, data from the selected articles will be tabulated and synthesised with a qualitative and quantitative approach using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as a unifying conceptual framework. A multidisciplinary consultation group of experts from various stakeholder groups will be involved in multiple steps to ensure validation and relevance of the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a review involving analysis of data available in the public domain and does not involve human participants, ethical approval was not required. Results will be presented in a co-constructed format with the expert consultation group to ensure validity and maximise its practicality moving forward. Our dissemination plan includes peer-reviewed publications, presentations and stakeholder meetings.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it