MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1572692647

Planning an Accessible Conference: From Theory to Practice

2010· article· en· W1572692647 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel Blais, S Ling Suen

Notice bibliographique

RevueTRANSED 2010: 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled PersonsHong Kong Society for RehabilitationS K Yee Medical FoundationTransportation Research Board · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueConferences and Exhibitions Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDelegateAttendanceEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceScheduleProcess (computing)Operations researchTask (project management)Process managementBest practiceProject managementManagement scienceEngineeringManagementPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of the paper is to present a model for planning and delivering a successful accessible conference, such as the International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled Persons (TRANSED) series. This could serve as a best practices model for future event organizers to achieve success in technical content, attendance, and overall accessibility of conference activities. The paper presents a case study of organizing an international conference on accessible transportation using a systematic five-phase planning approach. The process involved pre-planning, planning, implementation, event, and post-event phases. A critical path, which outlines the parallel and sequential activities of the entire project, was developed to monitor schedule adherence and task delivery. Close monitoring of web activity gave organizers an indication of the interest of potential participants and the opportunity to develop remedial measures if results were below expectation. Key events were identified with deadlines to proceed to the next planning phase. The methodology involved goal setting, demand estimation, macro and micro marketing strategies, and application of accessibility principles throughout. The validity of the approach was evaluated quantitatively (attendance statistics and technical outputs) and qualitatively (delegate feedback form and lessons learned). The methods used in this planning model proved to be a success. The target number for delegate registration was 500. Results were well beyond expectation, as over 700 delegates registered. Solicitation of abstracts also proved successful, with the most papers submitted ever for the TRANSED series. Furthermore, organizers were able obtain papers on topics that were not well represented. In all, 158 presentations in three plenary and 44 technical sessions were made. Average web activity was 150 hits per day; this number tripled for 2 to 4 days following new announcements. The conference also had a catalytic affect of increasing the accessibility of the conference venue and surrounding facilities – notably, installation of accessible design features before the conference (e.g., automatic push buttons on washroom doors, audible pedestrian signals), which would remain for future use. The delegate feedback form provided an indication of strengths and weaknesses. The majority of respondents were extremely satisfied with the various social and technical conference activities: 96% were satisfied with the technical sessions and 94% found the social program enjoyable. Overall dissatisfaction ratings on various conference activities were less than 10%. TRANSED 2007 was distinct from similar conferences in its enduring focus on putting accessibility theory into practice in content and in process. The TRANSED 2007 final report (Transport Canada, January 2008) was passed on as a legacy to future organizers.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,454
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,109
Tête enseignante GPT0,459
Écart entre enseignants0,350 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTRANSED 2010: 12th International Conference on Mobility and Transport for Elderly and Disabled PersonsHong Kong Society for RehabilitationS K Yee Medical FoundationTransportation Research BoardMême sujetConferences and Exhibitions ManagementTravaux en français237 207