The Influence of Wheelchair Users on Movement in a Bottleneck and a Corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emergency exits as bottlenecks in escape routes are important for designing traffic facilities. Particularly, the capacity estimation is a crucial performance criterion for assessment of pedestrians’ safety in built environments. For this reason, several studies were performed during the last decades which focus on the quantification of movement through corridors and bottlenecks. These studies were usually conducted with populations of homogeneous characteristics to reduce influencing variables and for reasons of practicability. Studies which consider heterogeneous characteristics in performance parameters are rarely available. In response and to reduce this lack of data a series of well-controlled large-scale movement studies considering pedestrians using different types of wheelchairs was carried out. As a result it is shown that the empirical relations <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mover accent="false"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="false"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math> and <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mover accent="false"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>J</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>s</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo stretchy="false">(</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="false"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ρ</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mo>¯</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo stretchy="false">)</mml:mo></mml:math> are strongly affected by the presence of participants with visible disabilities (such as wheelchair users). We observed an adaption of the overall movement speeds to the movement speeds of participants using a wheelchair, even for low densities and free flow scenarios. Flow and movement speed are in a complex relation and do not depend on density only. In our studies, the concept of specific flow fits for the nondisabled subpopulation but it is not valid for scenario considering wheelchair users in the population.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".