Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of thisstudy is to deduce the way of improvement and complementary measures of guidelines on facility for the physically disabled based on comparative analysis of disability codes in Korea, America, and Canada and field observation. For this objective, the codes and guidelines of three countries were compared and analysed, and based on the analysis the checklist was developed for field observation. Since the facility guidelines for disability person was came into effect in 1998 in Korea, 17 public facilities opened after 1998 were selected to investigate whether the facilities meet the written guidelines and how conveniently the users are taking advantage of the provisions in Korea. The results of investigation suggest there be improved guidelines in terms of accessibility and convenience, which, in detail, are summarized in following five points: (1) The regulations need to be complemented and clarified in its detailed description, (2) The items, which belong to mandatory and recommended sections, need to be readjusted, (3) The need of adjustments in detailed dimensional requirement, (4) The purpose and user's manual of public facilities need to be restated, (5) The need of the possibility of continuous access has to be mentioned.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".