Evaluation of a new basketball wheelchair design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new basketball wheelchair has been designed, which permits a wide variety of adjustments, reducing the need for expensive customization. In the present study this new prototype basketball wheelchair was evaluated. Seventeen participants were administered in a test battery using their personal and the prototype wheelchair. Maximal aerobic power, metabolic economy, stability, maneuverability, and scores on field performance tests were assessed. Following all tests, a questionnaire was administered to all participants. No significant differences were found between the personal and prototype wheelchair on any of the tests. Questionnaire results revealed that the prototype chair was rated significantly superior concerning weight, maneuverability, rolling resistance and footrest stability but significantly inferior concerning height of the chair and backrest. It can be concluded that the new basketball wheelchair is a highly adaptable, and maneuverable wheelchair. It is remarkable that, given the focus on wheelchair design and perceived need for special fitting, the new wheelchair was so adaptable across a variety of users and that performance did not differ between the personal and prototype chair. This is particularly important for countries or beginning wheelchair basketball players who can not afford customized wheelchairs
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".