Experiencing accessibility of historical heritage places with individuals living with visible and invisible disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Around 16% of world's population lives with visible and invisible disabilities. People with disabilities' participation may be limited because of the environmental obstacles. Moreover, historic heritage places were built before the development of accessibility standards and the rights of people living with disabilities and the majority were not designed to be accessible. Access to historic heritage places is important for carrying out the activities in place but also to create and reinforce identity. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of people with visible and invisible disabilities when visiting heritage sites considering accessibility issues. Methods: This study is a qualitative interpretive description. Participants were adults with visible (e.g., motor disability) or invisible (e.g., autism) disabilities. For data collection, go along interviews (also referred to in the literature as "walking interview" in two different locations in the Historic District of Old Quebec in Quebec City were conducted. Thematic analysis was done. Results: (Seminary of Quebec City) and the other in Petit-Champlain and Place Royale areas of Quebec City. Three themes emerged: (1) Obstacles and impact on participation; (2) Disabling accessibility; and (3) Heritage meaning. Discussion: The barriers identified by participants are diverse and differ according to the person and the type of disability. However, social and leisure activities were particularly limited, despite the strategies developed by some participants. Participants in the study demonstrated an interest in accessing to heritage places, therefore it seems essential to consider the needs of people with disabilities when developing accessibility solutions, and to seek a balance between preserving heritage and promoting inclusive and equitable access for all.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".