Wheelchair users function and satisfaction with modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair services in Pakistan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair users with poor trunk control and postural abnormalities require additional posture support devices and wheelchair modifications to sit upright. Therefore, this study was conducted to observe the function of wheelchair users in the modified wheelchair and their satisfaction with both the modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair service. A descriptive study was conducted, and 14 participants were recruited through consecutive sampling. Post-intervention data were collected from these wheelchair users using the Functioning Every Day with a Wheelchair (FEW) and the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST) questionnaires. The data were analyzed through frequency tables and a two-sample t-test. The scores indicated that wheelchair users functioned well in the modified wheelchairs. The range of FEW was 4.8 to 5.6, respectively, with a mean of 5.15 ± 0.227, out of a maximum possible score of 6. The QUEST device sub-score was 4.514 ± 0.2381 and the service sub-score was 4.550 out of a maximum possible score of 5 (SD = 0.3716) indicating that the users were highly satisfied with both the modified wheelchairs and intermediate service provided. Wheelchair users functioned well in the modified wheelchair and expressed a high level of satisfaction with both the modified wheelchair and intermediate wheelchair service provided.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it