Design of built environments to accommodate mobility scooter users: part II
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
PURPOSE.Accessibility standards for wheeled mobility devices currently use a 1.5 m turning circle, designed to accommodate manual wheelchairs. Scooters are less manoeuvrable than wheelchairs, so allowing a full turning circle would require too much space. Instead, we propose using a rectangle that provides space for a three-point turn. Here, we determine the area requirements of this approach. METHOD. For rectangular 'rooms' of varying aspect ratios, we measured the minimum dimensions in which two four-wheeled scooters (the Celebrity-X and Fortress-1700), which combine good outdoor performance with reasonable indoor manoeuvrability, could enter the space, perform a three-point turn and exit. Moveable Styrofoam walls defined each 'room', and a doorway was located either near the corner of the space or in the middle of one wall. 'Room' size was decreased until our expert driver could no longer perform the manoeuvre. RESULTS. Compared to the area required for a turning circle, 42-54% savings were achieved. Relative to existing requirements, 53-95% more space is required to accommodate the Celebrity-X; 173-223% increases are necessary for the Fortress-1700. CONCLUSIONS. When accommodating four-wheeled scooters, our proposed three-point turn definition would require more space than the current standards, but considerably less than if a full turning circle were used.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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