MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Open-Source Designs for Distributed Manufacturing of Low-Cost Customized Walkers

2023· preprint· en· W4367040509 on OpenAlexaff
Anita So, Jacob M. Reeves, Joshua M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen sourceRange (aeronautics)Structural engineeringComputer scienceSimulationEngineeringMaterials scienceSoftwareComposite materialOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve accessibility, this article describes a static, four-legged, walker that can be constructed from materials and fasteners commonly available from hardware stores coupled by open-source 3-D printed joints. The designs are described in detail, shared under an open-source license, and fabricated with a low-cost open-source desktop 3-D printer and hand tools. The resulting device is loaded to failure to determine the maximum load that the design can safely support in both vertical and horizontal failure modes. The experimental results showed the average vertical failure load capacity was 3680±694.3N, equivalent to 375.3±70.8kg of applied weight with the fractured location at the wood dowel handlebars. The average horizontal load capacity was 315.6±49.4N, equivalent to 32.2±5.1kg. The maximum weight capacity of a user of 187.1±29.3kg was obtained, which indicates the open-source walker design can withstand the weight requirements of all genders with a 95% confidence interval that includes a safety factor of 1.8 when considering the lowest deviation weight capacity. The design has a cost at the bottom of the range of commercial walkers and reduces the mass compared to a commercial walker by 0.5kg (19% reduction). It can be concluded that this open-source walker design can aid accessibility in low-resource settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207