Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : The purpose of this study was to promote R&D of toilet design for the disabled by evaluating the Front-entry sitting toilet applied it to actual wheelchair users to examine the possibility of their application as a toilet that is low physical demanding and high satisfaction.Methods : Forty wheelchair users were asked to demonstrate using Front-entry sitting toilet after collecting the general characteristics and their current wheelchair usage information. Musculoskeletal disease risk assessment and user satisfaction were evaluated throughout Rapid Entire Body Assessment(REBA), Quebec Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology 2.0(QUEST) and subjective opinion questionnaire. Results : Statistical result showed that REBA scores(3.18±.38) of Front-Entry Sitting Toilet were significantly lower(z=-5.930, p<.05) than the conventional toilet(6.53±1.15). Overall, user satisfaction ratings were high with detailed scores were high in order of durability(4.48±.62), safety(4.38±.63), necessity(4.33±.73) and universal (4.3±.61). Subjective opinion survey showed most were 'it was convenient to not have to rotate(30.8%).'Conclusion : This study found that Front-entry sitting toilet was highly likely to reduce the risk of musculoskeletal disorders and users' satisfactions were high. Through this study, we hope to expand the scope of occupational therapists and contribute to the physical, mental and social health in the daily activities of the people by applying various approaches.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".