Factors Affecting Decision on Environmental Modification according to Universal Design: A Case Study of a Private University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conventional belief of universal design objective is to benefits for few people with high cost of investment. It is, therefore, considered as unprofitable project, although Thai government has well developed laws according to the concept. A university is an organization which is affected by this concept, because it should be place where welcoming people of differences and opening opportunities for all to access education with equality. However, it is not easy for a private university to invest in building or modifying universal design environment due to surplus cost of implementation. The objectives of this research are to: 1) study factors in universal design implementation; and 2) analyze importance level of executives in deciding to invest in universal design implementation or modification. The research procedure and qualitative data collection was conducted with 59 informants by face-to-face semi-structured interview. The informants of this research comprised 56 physical users, and 3 executives and building managers. The research results show that factors affecting decision on environmental modification based on universal design principles in private universities are: 1) social structure, 2) understanding and recognition of human values; and 3) business image promotion. However, probable factors not facilitating universal design implementation in universities were: 1) investment budget, 2) architectural Aesthetic, and 3) utilization. Additionally, background of the interviewees is one of reinforcing factors for decision on universal design investment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".