Transportation Policies for the Elderly and Disabled in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two main direction how local transport system for elderly and disabled (E&D) has been developed, and how the measures have been taken. First, the situation disabled cannot participate socially has been regarded as legal discrimination, especially with remarkable changes in the United States of American, Canada, and Sweden. Secondly, social participation of E&D has been advanced both politically and technically in transportation. One example is the special correspondence: For E&D who cannot use conventional public transport, specialized transport has been operated, and who can move in cars have been supported. The other example is from the viewpoint of universal design; Conventional public transport has been started to change to increase the use of E&D, in accessible design, subsidy for user side and supply side, and information system. With these changes, E&D will be able to move comfortably, and it will lead us to create social inclusion. At present, the rift between the countermeasures of specialized transport and of public transport (bus and railway) has been begun to be closed. By the transportation system of Demand Responsive Transport (DRT), concretely service route in Sweden and flex route in Europe, new direction of countermeasures has been started to grope. In the main text, this study was conducted on the following five countries, USA, Canada, Sweden, UK and Japan. Firstly, after clarifying system characteristics in each country, the relationship with human rights which has been deeply connected to mobility problems of E&D will be explained. Secondly, the development of surrounding Special Transport Service (ST Service), which has worked as a driving force to develop community transport system, and securement of accessibility in public transport, will be started. Thirdly, the course of action in community transport system will be hammered out.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".