A NEW ONTOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE FOR INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS: DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION CONTEXT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Social dimension of environment is an important aspect that should be reflected in research works related to studying the interactions between human and the environment. However, this dimension is usually neglected when representing the environment in geographic information systems for different applications. For instance, disability as a result of the interaction between human and environment is influenced by social and physical dimensions of environment. Although, this aspect is highlighted in most conceptual disability models by defining various taxonomies of the environment, from ontological perspective justifying and connecting social dimension to the physical dimension of the environment is not clearly determined. Integrating social dimension of the environment with its physical dimension for disability studies is a challenging task, which is the main objective of the present study. Here, we review some of the disability models and their perspective about classifying the environment. Then, from ontological perspective, their limitations are discussed and a new approach for the classification of concepts form the environment is presented. This approach facilitates and simplifies integration of social dimension in ontologies for more effective assessment of disability issue in Geographic Information System.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".