DEVELOPMENT OF A MEASURE OF ACCESSIBILITY TO URBAN INFRASTRUCTURES: A CONTENT VALIDITY STUDY
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backgound - Accessing urban infrastructures, such as educational and leisure facilities, is often a challenge for wheelchair users, blind and deaf people, and older adults with and without assistive devices. Rehabilitation professionals are the ones who assess the built environment to make sure that it is accessible for all kind of disabilities; they are providing professional recommendations if it is not accessible. Occupational therapists and other rehabilitation professionals are also asked to provide accessible recommendations before the construction of urban infrastructure as well. There is a need for a comprehensive measure of the built environment of exterior and interior urban infrastructures to evaluate access for individuals with physical disabilities (motor, visual, hearing), using assistive technologies or not, to foster their social participation and fair access rights. This paper describes the development and content validation of the Measure of accessibility to urban infrastructures for adults with physical disabilities (MAUAP). Method - This process of developing a measurement tool in health involved three steps: 1) consultation of the scientific and grey literature, 2) content development, and 3) content validation with two panels of experts including a field pretest. Results - The MAUAP includes seven independent sections: parking lot, pedestrian facilities, building access from the exterior, interior maneuvering areas, infrastructures for learning and leisure, services and public restroom. Items are assessed with the percentage of characteristics present (1 to 16) and an accessibility score (4-level ordinal scale). Conclusion - The MAUAP allows the identification of precise accessibility recommendations that can be useful for health professionals and other professionals involved in conception and refection, such as architects and city planners.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it