MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210476655 · doi:10.1080/10400435.2021.1992541

An exploratory analysis of global trends in wheelchair service provision knowledge across different demographic variables: 2017–2020

2021· article· en· W3210476655 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Goldberg, Mohammed Alharbi, Krithika Kandavel, Yohali Burrola-Mendez, Nancy Augustine, María Luisa Toro-Hernández, Jonathan Pearlman

Bibliographic record

VenueAssistive Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsWheelchairExploratory analysisService (business)Applied psychologyPsychologyGerontologyComputer scienceKnowledge managementMedicineBusinessData scienceMarketingWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore global trends in manual wheelchair service provision knowledge across geographic, professional, and socioeconomic domains. A secondary analysis of a dataset from the International Society of Wheelchair Professionals' Wheelchair Service Provision Basic Knowledge Test was conducted. The dataset included test takers from around the world and was extracted from Test.com and International Society of Wheelchair Professionals' Wheelchair International Network. Participants 2,467 unique test takers from 86 countries. Interventions Not applicable. International Society of Wheelchair Professionals' Wheelchair Service Provision Basic Knowledge Test. We identified significant inverse associations between pass rate and the following variables: education (high school and some college), test taker motivation (required by academic program or employer), and country income setting (low and middle). There were significant positive associations between pass rate and the following variables: training received (offered by Mobility India or 'other NGO'), and age group served (early childhood). Global wheelchair knowledge trends related to key variables such as training, occupation, and income setting have been preliminarily explored. Future work includes further validation of the primary outcome measure and recruitment of a larger sample size to further explore significant associations between additional test taker variables.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAssistive TechnologySame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207