MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409270401 · doi:10.1080/17483107.2025.2488387

The effects of the SmartDrive on fostering participatory opportunities for manual wheelchair users: a qualitative exploration

2025· article· en· W4409270401 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ella T. Selby, Rajat K. Shandal, Noah Martin, Martin Ferguson-Pell, Emily Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairCitizen journalismQualitative researchPsychologyManual wheelchairParticipatory designEngineeringHuman–computer interactionKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyOperations managementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to understand the impact of the SmartDrive (SD) on the lived experiences of manual wheelchair users (MWUs) in Edmonton Alberta, Canada. To accomplish this, we conducted individual semi-structured interviews following each study phase on 19 participants (20-70 y) who identified as either full-time or part-time manual wheelchair users, followed by thematic analysis using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach. We identified 3 major themes characterizing participant's experiences with the SmartDrive. (1) Facilitating experiences: Participants were able to access experiences through increased independence which strengthened personal relationships as well as transformed societal perceptions with the use of the SmartDrive. (2) Dimensions of Health: Participants were able to holistically improve their health and wellbeing in physical, emotional, and social realms through opportunities created by the SmartDrive. (3) Actual Value: Participants identified the primary economic barrier concerning the price of the SmartDrive in addition to expenses accumulated through living with a disability. In conclusion, SmartDrive has potential to improve the lived experiences of manual wheelchair users by enabling independent access to participation in order to improve overall health and connections within society, but is restricted by the economic barriers concerning the cost. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov and NCTRC (Registration Number NCT04973059).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.494
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.316 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and Rehabilitation Assistive TechnologySame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207