Accessibility of Canadian COVID-19 Testing Locations for People with Disabilities During the Third Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Canadians with disabilities make up nearly a quarter of the population yet faced barriers in accessing information about COVID-19 testing accessibility across the country. Objective: This study aimed to understand the availability of accessibility information for COVID-19 testing sites in Canada. To date, no known studies have evaluated the availability of accessibility information online.Methods: An environmental scan of COVID-19 testing websites was conducted (1) nationally through the provincial/territorial websites for COVID-19 testing and (2) in Ontario, where there was individual location information. Data on key accessibility features were extracted from the website to simulate the user experience of booking a COVID-19 test during March 2021. Results: All provinces and territories provided minimal accessibility information on their provincial or territorial COVID-19 testing websites. Only Ontario included accessibility information for individual testing locations. Out of 170 individual testing locations in Ontario, few had information about accessibility, with only 8.2% listing at least 3 of the 5 key accessibility features measured on their websites.Conclusions: This study demonstrates that, more than a year into the pandemic, there existed a clear lack of accessibility information for testing locations for Canadians 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 | 0.005 | 0.296 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".