Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a comparative study mainly on foreign countries' domestic standards and laws on barrier free housing construction that can be applied to the dwelling of elderly friendly apartment housing. Eight countries - the United States, Germany, Canada, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and China - were reviewed as foreign cases. The analyzed subjects were design standards only for the disabled and the aged. To compare barrier-free guides of the eight countries, each barrier-free guide on three space units (entrance, bedroom, living room) was divided into 11 design items and 36 design factors. The comparative analysis on foreign cases was based on the design guide according to Korea's KS P1509 (principle and recommendation for designing dimension of dwelling in consideration of the elderly). Some factors -if with dimensions- were compared by means of the skewness of distribution. In the analysis result, there were not only common standards for the nine countries such as a dimension of the space for wheelchair movement but also different standards such as heights of outlets and horizontal lengths of bathtub grab bars. The detailed analysis shows that it is urgently necessary to prepare new domestic national design standards for 8 factors that foreign countries already have. It is also needed to immediately prepare dimension standards for the design factors, which have no detailed dimensions but only national guides, in consideration for anthropometric dimension.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".