Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two major trends concerning policies for and growth of Local Transport Systems for the elderly and disabled. The first is that conditions that prevent social participation by the disabled have been deemed discriminatory in legal terms, and especially in such countries as the US, Canada, and Sweden, this trend has become pronounced. The second trend is that policies and technologies to promote social participation by the elderly and disabled in terms of transport have become much more concrete. This trend has two aspects, one of which is special measures. These include the operation of Special Transport Services (STS) for elderly and disabled people who cannot utilize conventional transport, and measures to support people who can get around by car. The other aspect has arisen from the viewpoint of Universal Design. It inclines toward design technologies (accessible design, usability, safety) that enable the elderly and disabled to utilize conventional transport, user and supply side subsidies, and social inclusion, to enable mobility on a par with that of able-bodied people, through information systems. Additionally, at present, development is starting to incline toward filling the gap between measures for such STS and measures for public transport such as buses and trains. In specific terms, a search has begun for new policy directions through DRT (Demand Responsive Transport) systems, notably the Swedish service route and the European “flex” route. The purpose of this research, which concerns five countries – the US, Canada, Sweden, the UK, and Japan – is firstly, after summarizing the characteristics of systems in each country, to clarify how human rights issues such as anti-discrimination legislation, which are deeply related to mobility problems among the elderly and disabled, have become linked to mobility issues. Secondly, its purpose is to clarify how such matters as related STS and ensuring access to public transport, which have become the impetus for development of Local Transport Systems, have developed. Specifically, such experiences in Europe and America will provide hints regarding future directions to be chosen in developing countries in Asia, South America, and Africa.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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".