MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191535629 · doi:10.1155/2021/1789241

Study of the Space Occupied by a Wheelchair User at Metro de Santiago Platforms by Laboratory Experiments

2021· article· en· W3191535629 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joaquin Valdivieso

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Transportation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloUniversity College London
KeywordsWheelchairSpace (punctuation)SimulationComputer scienceManual wheelchairTransport engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective is to study the space a wheelchair passenger would use in the preferential waiting areas of an urban railway platform. For this purpose, an analysis of the variables that interfere in the space occupied by a wheelchair user was carried out at Metro de Santiago platforms, to design a preferential prototype waiting area at the Human Dynamics Laboratory of the Universidad de los Andes (Chile). The prototype has a 3.0 m long and 2.5 m wide carriage, together with a preferential waiting area on the platform of the same length as the carriage, and 2.0 m wide. With this prototype defined, a detection method was developed using PeTrack software, to accurately identify the limits of the space occupied by a wheelchair user under two scenarios of different density levels in the preferential waiting area: medium-density (1.5 passengers/m2) and high-density (4.0 passengers/m2). It was observed that the space occupied by a wheelchair user decreased by 33% as the density increased from medium to high. On the other hand, for a high-density level, the space occupied by a wheelchair user was found to be 61% higher than that occupied by a passenger without reduced mobility. This variation occurred mainly because passengers increased their distance from the wheelchair user, which widened their area of influence. Further experiments are proposed as future research to extend this analysis using other density situations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced TransportationSame topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207