Canadian Study for R&D Needs and Priorities in Accessible Transportation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study was undertaken in 2008 by the Transport Canada’s Transportation Development Centre. The research consisted of a literature review of North American and international accessible transportation for the past 10 years, with emphasis on Canadian work; consultations with various Canadian organizations; an analysis of social, economic, and support needs; the establishment of research priorities; and a final report with recommendations. Three different questionnaires were developed to survey seven selected Canadian organizations representing persons with disabilities and two government agencies responsible for accessible transportation. Survey results were analysed in terms of priority and time frame, and further classified into three R&D categories: technology/innovation, policy, and training. Consultations with consumer groups showed that access to travel information, fare affordability, and information for boarding and alighting ranked as the top three high-priority issues. Problems with communication was a recurring theme for travellers with disabilities. The top R&D recommendations from government respondents included updating travel data, developing guidelines for accommodating passengers with disabilities, and improving communication and information technologies. The majority of recommended research projects fell under the technology/innovation category. Of the 51 R&D project recommendations, 25 were suggested to be implemented in a 5 year time frame and 10 were rated as top priority. The list is meant to be used to develop a comprehensive research program, and presented to stakeholders for consideration. The literature review and the survey helped to identify respondents’ key concerns in order to arrive at an array of recommendations in R&D, training, and implementation. The present study revealed the general R&D needs of disabled travellers and two federal government entities regarding accessible transportation. The proposed research projects were presented at a meeting of Transport Canada’s Advisory Committee on Accessible Transportation held on March 19, 2009, and at the Canadian Transportation Agency’s Accessibility Advisory Committee meetings held March 30-31, 2009, to obtain feedback and agreement, especially from the industry and service providers who had not been explicitly consulted in this study. Overall, both committees agreed with the research proposals. Industry representatives expressed a need to undertake R&D that would address the tendency for larger and heavier wheelchairs, the balance of accessibility needs with safety and security concerns, and the lack of transportation-focused data on persons with disabilities. The recent CTA ruling for a one-person-one-fare policy in Canadian domestic air travel (e.g. airlines may not charge more than one fare to obese persons with disabilities who require additional seating for themselves) was expressed as a matter of concern for the industry [Canadian Transportation Agency Decision No. 6 AT A 2008]. The implications for large and obese passengers in public transport vehicles and ambulances operations (e.g. boarding/alighting procedures and equipment, seating, fare policy, access to washroom, safety and emergency evacuation etc.) require solutions. This issue has been added onto the R&D priority list originally developed as the eleventh project.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».