Satisfação dos usuários de cadeira de rodas sobre o dispositivo e o serviço prestado nos centros de reabilitação
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research sought to verify the satisfaction of wheelchair users with the device and the service provided in the Rehabilitation Centers (CER) of the Unified Health System (SUS) in the city of Maceió. This is a cross-sectional quantitative study, carried out with users of two RECs in Maceió, over 18 years of age, who requested the device during 2018 and who had been using the CR for at least two months at the time of collection. The Brazilian Economic Classification Criteria (ABEP) and the Quebec User Satisfaction Assessment with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) were applied. 20 users between 18 and 70 years old, with acquired pathology, participated, of which 13 (65%) were male. The educational level was 7 (35%) in primary and secondary education. According to ABEP, 8 (40%) are in class C2 and 7 (35%) in class D. The level of satisfaction of the participants with CR obtained between 1.75 and 5 with an average of 4.1 and with the service 2.5 and 5. with an average of 4.3. The importance of including in care protocols the use of instruments that evaluate the assistive technology resources offered to users was highlighted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".