Wheelchair Badminton: A Narrative Review of Its Specificities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the scientific literature on wheelchair badminton and its distinctive aspects, encompassing abilities and disabilities, propulsion technique, and the use of a racket. The relatively young history of wheelchair badminton is reflected in the scarcity of scientific studies within this domain, highlighting the need for further investigation. The review systematically covers existing articles on wheelchair badminton, offering a nearly exhaustive compilation of knowledge in this area. Findings suggest that athletes with abdominal capacities engage in more intense matches with a higher frequency of offensive shots compared to athletes with little or no abdominal capacities. Moreover, backward propulsion induces higher cardiorespiratory responses, overall intensity of effort, physiological stress, metabolic load, and rating of perceived exertion, particularly at high imposed rolling resistance or speeds, and makes it difficult to generate sufficient forces on the handrim, requiring adjustments in the kinematics of propulsion techniques, particularly at high rolling resistances or speeds, potentially leading to performance decrements. The use of a badminton racket further increases generated forces while decreasing the efficiency of propulsion and modifying the propulsion technique with shorter and quicker pushes, potentially impacting performance. Further research is imperative to explore additional perspectives, address existing gaps, and expand the scope of study within the wheelchair badminton domain. This narrative review serves as a foundation for future investigations, emphasizing the necessity of continued research to enhance our understanding of wheelchair badminton.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".