Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The ramp is an important facility for the barrier free access and vertical circulation of users of various buildings, including users of walker, wheelchair users, stroller users, and baggage carriers. The installation standards for ramps in Korea have various problems during construction and BF certification. It is necessary to improve the criteria for ensuring practical mobility and safety. Method: Korean standard, International Standard(ISO 21542, 2011), German Standard(DIN 18040-1, 2010), Austrian Standard(OENORM B 1600, 2017), Swiss Standard(Norm SIA 500, 2009), Canadian Standard(Building Standards Guide, 2017), American Standard(ADA Standards, 2010) were investigated and analyzed. A comprehensive improvement of the ramp installation standards is proposed. Results: The ramp is a necessary facility for the barrier free access and vertical circulation of the disabled. It shall be installed with comprehensive consideration of the appropriate slope of the ramp, the distance of the continuous slope, the handle and upstand for pedestrian safety. In order to improve convenience, setting the proper slope and limiting the length of the slope are very important, and improvements are required to the levels presented by international and foreign standards. The unclear standards of Korean law and BF certification standards should be clearly improved so as not to be misinterpreted in construction and Barrier Free Certification. Implication: International and foreign standards should be reviewed to ensure practical mobility and safety. And comprehensive improvement measures should be presented through continuous research.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.016 |
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".