Nível de Satisfação dos Usuários de Produtos Assistivos na Região Amazônica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Amazon Region has unique spatial characteristics and remarkable natural wealth, a fact that contrasts with the precarious availability of rehabilitation services for Assistive Technology (AT) users in the region. The article seeks to describe the evaluation of AT resources and services by users of the Marajó Archipelago. Methodology: Quantitative, descriptive study, in which 39 people with disability aged between 22 and 84 years old, AT users, who answered the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0) participated. Results: The best rated item was Product Efficacy, and the worst rated was Technical Assistance and Maintenance. The most important were: Comfort, Safety and Durability. Discussion: The results obtained, along with the national and international literature, made it possible to relate the unique characteristics of the region with the precarious Marajoara health services. Conclusion: QUEST 2.0 proves to be effective in assessing the level of satisfaction of Marajoara users of AT, allowing discussion with socioeconomic factors. New studies using the questionnaire are needed, as well as studies focused on the analysis of the Amazon region and its population.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".