Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter provides an overview of the evidence linking mobility to quality of life (QoL). The findings showed that the operationalization of QoL varied across studies covering measures of physical or mental health, general health perception, life satisfaction, participation, illness intrusiveness, health-related QoL (HRQL) and global quality of life. These outcomes are sometimes single items or uni-dimensional constructs and sometimes profile measures, rendering the interpretation of findings in our context difficult. This complexity led to a revelation that one could think of QOL of the person differently from the QoL of the body. QoL of the person is best reflected through global QOL measures including those of life satisfaction whereas QoL of the body is reflected in outcomes related to aspects of function including physical, emotional, or psychological impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. This chapter will focus on the general construct of mobility, which is considered an activity limitation, and on the causes of limited mobility, impairments of structures and functions needed for mobility. A distinction is made between the between the person’s QoL and the body’s QoL. While the person’s QOL is best self-expressed, the body’s QOL could be monitored in real-time with the assistance of a growing portfolio of personal, wearable technologies. The chapter ends with thoughts about how QoL of the body, and especially mobility, could be monitored and what that future may look like.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".