Development of Housing Standards and Spatial Design Guidelines for Mobility Handicaps in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this research are 1) to compare the standards of housing design for mobility disabled at the domestic and universal levels, 2) to standardize the developing process of housing design guideline for mobility handicapped properly with the context of Thailand, and 3) to evaluate the proficiency of the guideline by employing both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Regarding the guidelines comparison, the results indicated that the available housing design guidelines in Thailand had excluded the spatial allocation standard for supporting the mobility dependency as well as some particular dwelling functions had been abandoned from these guidelines. Furthermore, it appeared that these design guidelines were not constituted based on the participatory of multidisciplinary experts, for instance, medical and architectural professionals. This research had initiated an evaluating process for the guideline’s competence by using four indicators,namely, 1) comprehension, 2) completeness, 3) convenience, and 4) composition of design. The rating scale questionnaires were distributed to the two sampling groups comprising the group of 30 experienced Government agencies and the group of 30 mobility handicapped. The data collection consisted of two main steps: 1) the assessment of the comparative study-based guideline and 2) the assessment of the participatory-based guideline. The data retrieved from these two phases were analyzed by the inferential statistics, Paired Sample t-test. The results revealed the differences between these two sampling groups in every design category at the significance level of 0.05. It was clear that the participatory-based guideline was more efficient than the comparative study-based guideline (p ≤ 0.005). Besides, the evaluating scores addressed by the group of experienced Government agencies and the group of mobility disabled representative were discovered significantly contrary.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".