Small Aircraft Boarding for Passengers with Mobility Impairments in Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
More than 70 percent of all scheduled air service in Canada involves the use of small aircraft on one or more legs. Small aircraft, with 19 - 60 seats, make boarding, seating, and storage of mobility aids difficult for people with mobility impairments. Without innovative technologies, procedures, and policies, such difficulties can become barriers, especially for passengers using wheelchairs. Although some technologies and procedures are currently in use, there are no national guidelines to help carriers provide consistent access to small aircraft for passengers using wheelchairs. This paper discusses the development of a unique database to establish a basis for a Code of Practice for Canadian air carriers. The following essential components for the database will be investigated and established: (1) small aircraft types used by carriers; (2)airport class/size and routes; (3) boarding devices to lift passengers in wheelchairs from tarmac to aircraft door level; (4) boarding procedures and protocols used by carriers and airports; (5) compatibility between aircraft type, boarding device and boarding protocol; and (6) cost-effectiveness analysis for boarding devices and protocols. Survey instruments were designed to carry out a national survey targeting: (1) air carriers using small aircraft in their scheduled service; (2) airports used by small aircraft; and (3) manufacturers of boarding devices. The results will be used to develop a software program with several menus: (1) aircraft type and route allocation, indicating for each aircraft type its seating capacity, storage capability for wheelchairs, and accessible seating; (2) boarding device specifications, divided into terminal-based, mechanized tarmac- based, and aircraft-based equipment. Sub menus will include supplier details, engineering specs, capital and life-cycle costs, and compatibility with aircraft type; (3) boarding procedures/protocol (with details of compatibility with aircraft type), boarding equipment, and procedure costs. Chair transfers in terminals, at boarding devices, and in aircraft will be identified according to protocol and logistics; (4) compatibility and life-cycle cost menu featuring, for example, the cost and effectiveness of the required technology for a selected aircraft, along with the appropriate boarding procedure; and (5) current practice versus best practice will reveal details for compatible technologies, with boarding procedures, ranked by cost-effectiveness, and the percentage of passenger movements/airport. A recommended Code of Practice will be developed based on a detailed baseline of current practice by aircraft type and the identification of “best practice” improvements, also by aircraft type, that are cost-effective and state-of-the-art. Where incompatibilities exist, corresponding research and development gaps will be identified, e.g., integrated on-board boarding devices.
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 | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».