Exploration des cadres de construction des rampes d’accessibilité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessibility to buildings promotes social participation through the application of inclusive design. However, architectural frameworks for constructing accessibility ramps are based on scant scientific evidence. This article presents a statement of established standards for construction criteria for accessibility ramps and makes recommendations from the perspective of inclusive design. A literature review was performed using the databases Medline, OTseeker, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (2000 to 2013), combining keywords referring to: universal accessibility, inclusive design, accessibility ramps, biomechanics, obesity, and disabilities. Non-scientific literature was also explored (e.g. building codes). The fifty-eight articles selected were grouped under five themes: 1) ramps and users; 2) materials and climate; 3) visual reference; 4) "wayfinding"; 5) durability, aesthetics and culture. Recommendations encouraging interdisciplinary practice, pegged to inclusive design, are exhibited (e.g. tracking, tilt, contrast).
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".