Organizations’ Strategies to Improve Implementation of Universal Accessibility Principles: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, several countries have adopted laws, policies, and action plans to improve the universal accessibility of environments to improve inclusion and social participation of all citizens. Different organizations are involved in the application of these measures. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to identify strategies that are contextually appropriate and provide guidelines for organizations to promote successful implementation of universal accessibility. METHODS: We will conduct a scoping review identifying implementation strategies of universal accessibility measures in local organizations using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We will search in Medline, CINHAL, Urban Studies Abstracts, ABI Inform, and Social Sciences Full Text from 2006 until today, following the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Two reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion and will extract the data. A descriptive and thematic analysis of the characteristics of the identified implementation strategies will be performed. RESULTS: Implementation strategies will be summarized in tables. They will then be linked to various constructs and domains listed in the Theoretical Domain Framework to identify barriers and facilitators of organizations' uptake of evidence-based strategies of implementation. CONCLUSIONS: We will tabulate the characteristics of the included studies and the outcomes of implementation strategies in them. The results of this scoping review are expected to help the research community in various fields, local organizations, and stakeholders to identify better ways to improve implementation strategies of universal accessibility practices. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/33641.
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 | 0.184 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.013 |
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".