Pilot study to measure wheelchair users’ space requirements in the bathroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a methodology to measure the circulation area required by a manual or powered wheelchair within a toilet stall and present the range of possible results that can be collected when used in an experimental bathroom setup. Design/methodology/approach A bathroom environment containing a toilet, grab bars and two transparent acrylic panels suspended on rails to simulate walls was built. Three setups were experimented: 1,500 mm from the walls, 1,500 mm diagonally from the toilet and 1,700 mm from the walls. For each of the participants, markers were placed on the back and on the rear of the wheelchair and one on the toes of the participants. The Vicon® optical motion capture system was used to register the markers’ position in the 3D space. Findings The methodology proved to be relatively easy to install, efficient and easy to interpret in terms of results. It provides specific points from which it is possible to measure the trajectories of markers and calculate the polygonal projection of the area covered by each participant. The results showed that manual and powered wheelchair users required, respectively, 100 and 300 mm more than the minimum 1,500 mm wall-to-wall area to complete a rotation task in front of the toilet. Originality/value These results showed that the 1,500 mm gyration area proposed in the Canadian Code of Construction is not sufficient for manual and powered wheelchair users to circulate easily in toilet stalls. The methodology can provide evidence to support the improvement of construction norms in terms of accessible circulation areas.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".