Bibliographic record
Abstract
RSPs have a positive impact in promoting children's engagement in sports and physical activities. While some children used their RSP primarily for running, others wore it for a broader range of physical activities. Issues with balance and discomfort caused by leg length discrepancies and/or ill-fitting sockets limited daily wear time. Limitations related to current RSP designs and clinical implementation should be addressed to optimize the functional potential of children with unilateral or bilateral LLA.Implications for rehabilitationRunning-specific prostheses (RSPs) positively impacted children's ability to participate in some sports with peers promoting their physical and social well-being.The main issues that children faced were discomfort, difficulty balancing, and inability to use RSPs for certain sports, while parents' issues focused on supporting prosthesis use and transport, and adjustments of different prostheses to keep up with their child's growth.Clinicians should be aware of the challenges of RSP use to best support children and their families.Designers should focus on addressing limitations with current RSPs to facilitate the diverse needs of pediatric users.
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 | 0.000 | 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".