GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR PROSTHETICS AND ORTHOTICS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, essential documents and agreements have emerged to help improve the lives of people with physical disabilities. These include Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by more than 170 countries, and the World Health Organization (WHO) global disability action plan. While the principles in these broad agreements can be applied to people who would benefit from assistive technology, specific service standards are required to operationalize the CRPD and WHO objectives. Therefore, WHO, in partnership with the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics (ISPO) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), prepared global standards and an implementation manual to assist Member States in setting up, improving, or transforming their systems for delivering appropriate prosthetic and orthotic services. Article PDF Link:https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/31371/23745 How to cite: Lemaire ED, Supan T, Ortiz M. Global Standards for Prosthetics and Orthotics. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. Volume1, Issue2, No.3, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v1i2.31371
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".