Field Comparison of Two Types of Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of two types of accessible pedestrian signals on the street-crossing behaviors of 24 totally blind participants were directly compared in this research. One accessible pedestrian signal (APS) used a sound generator and vibrating hardware, which were integrated into the pedestrian push button (the Polara device). These sounds were heard from the near vicinity of the push button, and a different message or repetition rate was used to indicate the “Walk” interval. The second APS used pulsing light-emitting diodes to illuminate the message in the pedestrian signal head to transmit a message to a handheld receiver carried by the blind traveler (the Relume device). The handheld receiver provided a “Walk” or “Wait” message, designated by variable tones, which was audible only to the user. A control condition consisted of crossing without any APS device. Data were collected on crossing speed, the latency from the start of the walk and entering the crosswalk, the number of cycles missed, and the accuracy of the crossing. The results indicated that the time to cross the street was significantly shorter when participants used the handheld device than when they used the audible push-button device or crossed without any APS. There was no significant difference in crossing times between participants who used the audible push-button device and those who crossed without an APS under the control condition. The latency to start crossing was significantly faster when the participants used the handheld device than when they used the audible push button or crossed without an APS under the control condition. The number of missed cycles was significantly lower when the participant used either APS device than when the participant crossed without an APS device, and there was no difference in the number of missed cycles between the two APS devices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".