Use of Rear-Facing Position for Common Wheelchairs on Transit Buses
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
This synthesis will be of interest to transit agency staff and those who work with them in dealing with wheelchair securement on transit buses. It offers information on existing programs in many countries and documents transit agency experiences for the benefit of others considering similar deployments, in particular with respect to the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and to its use in U.S. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems. The report describes the state of the practice with respect to the use of rear-facing position for accommodating common wheelchairs (as defined by the ADA) on large transit buses (more than 30,000 lb) and identifies pertinent issues related to its transferability to the U.S. context. This report integrates the information obtained from a literature review, gathered from many sources and countries. Agency surveys of all Canadian transit systems that have adopted the rear-facing position, case studies, and interviews with key experts in several other countries (the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Sweden, as well as communications with Australian experts) were conducted to obtain information and to offer better insights. Case studies were conducted at British Columbia Rapid Transit (BC Transit), Victoria, BC, Canada, and Mississauga Transit, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Additionally, extensive discussions were held with Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) staff, Oakland, California--the first U.S. transit agency to design a rear-facing position in their 2002 order of transit buses to be used in a planned BRT deployment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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