MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394125021 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14289553

Influence of different seats on postural alignment: hammock adapted for cerebral palsy

2021· dataset· en· W4394125021 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F.S. Machado, Cristina dos Santos Cardoso de Sá, Raquel de Paula Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The hammock is an option to sit in the northern region of Brazil. However, its flexible structure can cause postural instability in individuals with cerebral palsy (CP), limiting their independence. Therefore, a hammock was created with a seat/back, seeking a seated positioning with adequate postural alignment. The objective was to verify the alignment of the trunk and lower limbs of individuals with CP in the conditions: adapted hammock, non-adapted hammock and bench, comparing them with control individuals without neurological disabilities. Six individuals with CP (CPG) and six individuals without neurological alterations (CG), aged between 8 and 14 years old, were evaluated in the seated posture under the conditions: adapted hammock, bench and hammock without seat/back support. By the kinematic analysis, angles of trunk, pelvis and lower limbs were evaluated in static posture for 5 seconds. Part of the Quebec B-Quest questionnaire was applied to the guardians. Results: lower limb, pelvis and trunk angles were similar in the three conditions. Quebec B-Quest: Greater satisfaction with product dimensions and less with comfort and safety. The adapted hammock can be considered an option to sit for short time, because it promoted postural control in individuals with CP.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207