Consulting The Experts: Towards A More Passenger-Friendly Accessible Transportation System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transportation is among the essential services that promote inclusion to everyday life for all citizens. Neither private nor public transportation systems provide fully adequate access for people with mobility limitations such as the elderly or people with disabilities. The historical exclusion from full participation in many activities of daily life experienced by people with disabilities is perpetuated by this lack of access to adequate transportation. Through a social lens and legislative backdrop, this study explored the challenges experienced by passengers of Accessible Transportation Services (ATS) in Hamilton, Ontario. This research was consistent with feminist methodology and was based upon a qualitative study of seven women with disabilities who are ATS passengers. The accounts of these passengers illuminated barriers, both practical and attitudinal, that they experienced in using accessible transportation. Managing these barriers required work on their parts, generated considerable stress and compromised their inciusion as equal and entitied citizens. This study can serve as a starting point from which to examine the experiences of accessible transportation for passengers of working age and how they navigate their lives through the complex set of rules. Their description of ATS can inform service operations and ongoing policy development, both locally and more broadly in the province or even abroad. This study can also enhance an understanding of transportation as a contributor to, and perhaps, determinant of social inclusion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".