A consumer assessment of women who use wheelchairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAY SUMMARY Female Veterans and female athletes with disabilities express concerns with mobility devices that are male-centric and do not address their unique needs. It is important that the needs of women are given the same attention as those of men. The following study asked groups of women who use wheelchairs or scooters, including Veterans and athletes, about their experiences. Twenty-four women, recruited from two sporting events for Veterans with disabilities, were asked to fill out a survey and participate in a focus group where they would discuss their views on mobility aids and related services. There were four major themes women often mentioned when they talked about using their mobility aids: usability (how they like using it), service delivery (how they get help with it), well-being (how they feel), and design (how it looks and works). Participants were concerned about the ability to adjust their device to their needs, how people obtained a device, and how they felt about using the device. Female wheelchair and scooter users recommended several changes to mobility aids that would improve the devices and improve the lives of women who use them.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".