MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173919303 · doi:10.17411/jacces.v5i2.104

Rethinking the Grocery Store: Inclusive Wayfinding System for Visually Impaired Shoppers in Grocery Stores

2015· article· en· W2173919303 on OpenAlexaff
Doaa Khattab

Bibliographic record

VenueRACO (Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert) (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrocery shoppingGrocery storeBusinessProduct (mathematics)Order (exchange)MarketingAdvertisingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many people with disabilities face considerable barriers while shopping in grocery stores. One such barrier is that they cannot find their way around easily, especially when they visit the grocery store for the first time and have not yet built a cognitive map in their memory. They may also experience delays in finding the right product or waiting for assistance from store employees, thus leading them to rely on family, friends, relatives, or volunteers to help them with their shopping. Problems start when these people are not available, in which case the individual is forced to cancel their visit to the grocery store and reschedule the trip. Grocery stores include many different zones and services, the aisles area being one of the main barriers to access for people with different disabilities. This area features many different sections such as canned goods, dry packaged goods, spices, drinks and snacks, baking supplies, baby items, cereals, cleaning products, pet supplies, and health and beauty items. For visually impaired individuals, however, it can be hard to reach these various sections and find the relevant products. The objective of this research is to design an inclusive and innovative wayfinding system in grocery stores for visually impaired shoppers in order to help them find the center zone, orient between different aisles, decide where to go, move easily between different sections, and select products with ease. The research approach will be based on the literature review and the application of the Delphi method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRACO (Revistes Catalanes amb Accés Obert) (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya)Same topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207