A Methodology Proposal of an Accessible Design for an UrbanIntersection to Improve Mobility of People with Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today people with disabilities account for 15% of the world's population, making them a very high group of vulnerable people. They are exposed to a high risk of becoming potential victims of traffic accidents, and for being discriminated against when they move from place to place by physical barriers, exclusive architectural constructions, and inaccessible modes of transport. This study develops a methodology based on the User-Center Design (UCD) theoretical framework to obtain an "Inclusive Design" for an urban road intersection. The methodology prioritizes the needs of users, pedestrians, and especially those with a physical disability, into the design of the transportation infrastructure. This approach would reduce mobility barriers, allowing people to move efficiently, safely, and autonomously. In addition, this proposal incorporates universal accessibility standards and resources from the Wayfinding spatial orientation system to complement the design, making the urban environment adapt to the needs of all people without any type of distinction. The methodology is applied and validated to an existing intersection near a hospital, located in Lima. The study involves conducting surveys to people with some type of disability, before and after the proposed enhancements; thus, the effectiveness of the proposal is measured. Results indicate that applying the proposed methodology, mobility barriers are significantly eliminated by up to 95%; therefore, it improves mobility, especially for people with disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".