DESIGNING INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS TO ENHANCE ORIENTATION AND MOBILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE VISUALLY IMPAIRED
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Independent and safe travel either in indoor or outdoor environments is often compromised for people who are visually impaired (VI) due to the presence of environmental obstacles, hazards or because of the absence of relevant information to ensure wayfinding. Many architectural barriers are encountered even in newly built buildings. Despite the fact that accessibility criteria are well documented for this population, designers are generally not aware of the particular needs of individuals with a visual impairment. A partnership project was therefore established between orientation and mobility (OM 2) entrance and hall; 3) horizontal circulation; 4) stairs; 5) elevators; 6) signage; 7) lighting; 8) color/ contrast. The sheet structure presents first the basic concepts that are cue guidelines prior to conception. Accessibility criteria are then listed in subtopics and scored as being either minimal (essential to meet safety travel) or recommended (improve ease of travel). A distinct application is clearly identified for new constructions and for retrofit. The content of each sheet was validated by a large interest group composed of a VI consumers representative and orientation and mobility specialists from regional rehabilitation centers of the province of Quebec. The tool was published and widely distributed to partners, designers, building owners and is WEB accessible. In a second phase, the study group is now working on accessibility criteria related to outdoor areas. Specification sheets including topics such as public sidewalks, open spaces (terraces, public places, etc.), and accessible traffic signals (APS) were drafted and are in the process of validation. A sheet relating to street corners is under construction. The work allowed coming to a consensus between all parties on accessibility criteria giving a better chance to influence legislation. Accessibility needs for buildings are more understood and known by designers and owners. The tool allows providing the relevant information in a quick way.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it