MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403387479 · doi:10.33137/cpoj.v7i1.44002

INVISIBLE STRUGGLES: EXPLORING CHALLENGES FACED BY WOMEN WITH AMPUTATION IN INDIA

2024· article· en· W4403387479 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Junaid Alam, A.K.. Tr. Joshi, Nida Mir, Nishtha Chawla, Sushma Sagar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicProsthetics and Rehabilitation Robotics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmputationVulnerability (computing)NeglectTownsendNew delhiPsychologyGerontologyMedicineSociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women in India, particularly those with amputation, face significant challenges, including but not limited to, unequal prosthetic access and satisfaction, societal discrimination, and the physical and emotional consequences of amputation. These challenges are further exacerbated by gender biases towards access to education and socioeconomic factors, which increases their vulnerability to unemployment and mental health issues. This article emphasizes the urgent need for affordable and customizable prosthetic options tailored to the unique needs of women with amputation, particularly those from low-income backgrounds who often face neglect. Thus, addressing these disparities would significantly enhance their overall well-being and independence. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/44002/33160 How To Cite: Alam J, Joshi A, Mir N, Chawla N, Sagar S. Invisible struggles: Exploring challenges faced by women with amputation in India. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2024; Volume 7, Issue 1, No.5. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v7i1.44002 Corresponding Author: Professor Sushma Sagar,Division of Trauma Surgery and Critical Care, Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi, India.E-Mails: sagar.sushma@gmail.com; dr.sushma@aiims.gov.inORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4700-9868

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Prosthetics & Orthotics JournalSame topicProsthetics and Rehabilitation RoboticsFrench-language works237,207