Electronic Mobility Aid Devices for Deafblind Persons: Outcome Assessment
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
Given the lack of studies using standardized and objective measures on the effect of electronic systems that helps obstacle detection or orientation, the purpose of this article is to present a single-subject's case study of 4 users aged between 50 and 70 years old followed in a deafblindness program in a rehabilitation center. The Canadian measure of occupational performance suggests that the performance and the satisfaction are higher following the use of the Miniguide and the Breeze, two commercial electronic mobility aid devices, in four types of occupations (functional mobility, active leisure, community role, and socialization). The training was completed in 4 to 10 sessions (5 to 14 hours in total). The Québec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology reveals high satisfaction except for one participant regarding 4 of 8 items. Finally, a follow-up interview three months after training was done to evaluate the used features, the frequency of utilization, problems, safety and the impact on functional independence.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it