Services, systems, and policies affecting mobility device users’ community mobility: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Opportunities to travel from one place to another in the community, or community mobility, are especially important for mobility device users' ability to participate fully in society. However, contextual challenges to such mobility exist. PURPOSE: This study summarizes the literature on existing community mobility barriers and facilitators of mobility device users created by services, systems, and policies as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). METHOD: Arksey and O'Malley's approach for scoping studies was used for the review. The extraction chart was organized following the ICF, and frequency counts were used to report the data. FINDINGS: The findings suggest that certain factors, such as transportation, open-space planning, and architecture and construction, influence community mobility opportunities. However, little attention has been paid to services, systems, and policies in the research literature, limiting the knowledge on the subject. IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to examine the relationship between specific services, systems, and policies and mobility device users' mobility within their communities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".