Transit Apps for People With Brain Injury and Other Cognitive Disabilities: The State of the Art
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
Individuals with cognitive disability have difficulty using public transit, but little research is directed toward this issue. Recent studies suggest that smartphones may be useful assistive devices in this context. Current objectives were to (1) survey research into difficulties people with cognitive disabilities experience when using public transit, (2) survey the current state of the art of transit and personal navigation applications (apps) and features, (3) recommend best existing transit apps for people with cognitive disability, and (4) recommend the best designs and features of these apps to developers of future transit apps. Potentially useful features were found in four categories: Transit apps for (1) individuals with cognitive disabilities and (2) healthy individuals, and personal navigation apps for (3) individuals with cognitive disabilities and (4) healthy individuals. A total of 159 apps were examined, but only seven were found specific to public transit for cognitive disability. By comparing research recommendations and currently available features, we identified several unmet needs. We note that there appears to be a shortage of apps for this population-function but that there is good research in the area and it is well suited to inform app development.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it