MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7043323665

Sensory Design Guidelines: Inclusive Children’s Treatment Centres

2020· other· en· W7043323665 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University) · 2020
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNeurotypicalSensory systemAutism spectrum disorderSensory processingAffect (linguistics)AutismSpecial needs
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The social model of disability recognizes that disability is caused by systematic barriers within society, not by an individual’s impairments or difference, that result in a mismatch between an individual and their social environment. An inclusive environment is where people of all differences can experience equitable participation and a sense of belonging. In Canada, over 540,000 youth have one or more disabilities with developmental and learning disabilities accounting for 60% of disabled youth (Statistics Canada, 2018). Special needs children and youth face diverse challenges in their physical, cognitive, social, language and/or behavioural development (Ontario Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services, 2020). Among school-aged children, 44.8% with one or more disabilities report a speech disorder, almost 25% have vision problems, and 8% have hearing loss (Statistics Canada, 2008; NCVH, 2011; Statistics Canada, 2016). Moreover, 5-16% of neurotypical children and over 90% of children with autism spectrum disorder experience sensory processing disorder that affect their sensory systems: auditory, visual, tactile, smell, taste, vestibular, proprioception, and interoception (Owen, et al., 2013; Chang, et al., 2014). Sensory processing disorder can result in difficulty regulating responses to sensory stimuli, difficulty with balance and motor coordination, and difficulty interpreting sensory stimuli. Environments that recognize and respond to diverse sensory needs can help positively support mental health, behaviour, social connection, concentration, motor coordination, access to information, and confidence.
\n
\nChildrenʼs treatment centres are integral in supporting special needs children and youth aged 0 to 19 to live at their full potential by providing specialized services, programs, and treatments. The design of these spaces can facilitate or impede the experiences, well-being, and treatment of the children that they serve. Although these treatment facilities seek to provide an inclusive environment, the diversity and complexity of special needs poses a challenge to designing spaces that provide equitable use while fostering diversity and inclusion. Current building codes and guidelines, which aim to improve access for all individuals with disabilities, place a large emphasis on physical accessibility throughout a building and its facilities. However, they fail to address less visible cognitive and sensory needs.
\n
\nThe Sensory Design Guidelines: Inclusive Children’s Treatment Centres intends to address these challenges and propose guidelines for designing inclusive sensory environments in childrenʼs treatment centres with the goal of improving the experiences, well-being, and treatment of special needs children and youth. Specifically, through the development of a sensory environment matrix, it will address auditory, visual, tactile, olfactory, and proprioceptive design attributes within five main categories: wayfinding and navigation, public gathering spaces and amenities, recreational spaces, treatment spaces, and transitional spaces. Throughout the research process, there has been extensive consultation with children and youth, parents, therapists, staff, and architects to ensure that the voices and perspectives of both individuals with lived experiences and experts are represented in the research and development of the guidelines. In particular, the use of participatory research methods including interviews and co-design sessions provided opportunities for participants to share their experiences and imagine how future treatment centres might be designed.
\n
\nThis research is a collaboration with Grandview Kids Children’s Treatment Centre in anticipation of the development of their new treatment centre in Ajax, Ontario, and will inform the centre’s design, serving as a demonstration plan for the design guidelines. This research is made possible with funding from Mitacs through the Mitacs Accelerate Program. The research presented here is the result of all of the participating communities and their continued dedication to supporting children and youth.

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)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Science ouverte, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,455
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0050,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,002
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0070,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,004

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 Opus0,138
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,210 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

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
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOCAD University Open Research Repository (OCAD University)Travaux en français237 207