Evacuation solutions for individuals with functional limitations in the built environment: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether due to aging, disability, injury, or other circumstances, an increasing number of Canadians experience functional limitations that reduce their ability to participate in activities of daily life. While the built environment has become increasingly accessible, existing Canadian evacuation guidelines lack comprehensive strategies for evacuating individuals with functional limitations from buildings during emergencies. To inform guideline revisions, a map of existing solutions for evacuating such individuals is required. Therefore, this scoping review aims to provide an account of solutions that have been reported to safely evacuate individuals with functional limitations from the built environment. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. To identify potentially relevant studies, comprehensive searches (from January 2002 onwards) of the CINAHL, Ei Compendex, Inspec, Embase, MEDLINE, KCI, RSCI, SciELO CI, Web of Science Collection, and Scopus databases will be performed. Using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers will independently (1) classify identified studies as relevant, irrelevant, or maybe relevant by evaluating their titles and abstracts and (2) classify the relevant and maybe relevant studies as included or excluded by evaluating their full-text. From each included study, data on publication information, study purpose, methodological details, evacuation information, and outcomes will be extracted using a set of data extraction items. We will present a numerical summary of the key characteristics of the included studies. For each evacuation activity, reported evacuation solutions will be summarized, and citations provided for functional limitations that are targeted by a given evacuation solution. To inform Canadian evacuation guideline revisions, we will tabulate evacuation activities common to different types of buildings and emergencies. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to identify the state and use of solutions for evacuating individuals with functional limitations from the built environment. Identifying solutions that enable all individuals to safely evacuate from different types of buildings will allow us to inform recommendations for the revision of evacuation guidelines in Canada and other jurisdictions. The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences, and made publicly available on the internet. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: osf.io/jefgy.
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 | 0.104 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.009 |
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".