An examination of accessibility planning for persons with disabilities in mid-size Canadian municipalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately one out of every seven Canadians over the age of 15 years (3.4 million people) has some level of disability. The increasing prevalence of disability in our aging society is commonly accepted as fact with both disability and the severity of disability gradually increasing with age (Statistics Canada, 2001). Recognizing that persons with disabilities often face "barriers" to full participation in society, some provinces have enacted human rights or accessibility planning legislation to remove these barriers. \n \nThis study examines the process of accessibility planning for persons with disabilities within Canadian municipalities with a population of between 50,000 –500,000, otherwise referred to as mid-size cities (MSC). The underlying assumption of this research is that mid-size Canadian municipalities are carrying out some form of accessibility planning using planning instruments [or other tools] to remove barriers and improve accessibility for persons with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to determine: first, what planning instruments are being used in the design of open space and built environments in MSCs to remove physical barriers, and what other tools are available to attain greater accessibility for persons with disabilities living in mid-size urban settings. Secondly, to consider who is involved in the implementation and use of planning instruments and other tools, and to determine what are their respective roles. Third, to discover the conditions under which planning instruments and other tools are being applied, to learn what financial or other resources are being allocated and how are they being allocated in the short and long term. \n \nThis study concludes that planning instruments are being used to improve accessibility for persons with disabilities in mid-size Canadian municipalities. Planning tools are not the only way to remove barriers to persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the effectiveness of those tools is clearly contingent upon available human and financial resources. Nevertheless, the study finds that municipal planners and others are using these essential planning tools in a variety of ways to remove physical barriers to accessibility. Inherent in all efforts to remove barriers is the active involvement of persons with disabilities. Thus, involving persons with disabilities in the development and application of planning instruments and other tools has the potential to build the foundation of successful accessibility planning efforts in Canadian mid-size communities. These conclusions have implications for research in the area of accessibility planning and recommendations for Canadian planning practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".