Dehumanizing air travel: a scoping review on accessibility and inclusion of people with disabilities in international airports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Worldwide, one in six individuals live with a disability. Many people continue to experience disabling situations, particularly when travelling. Travel can be an important part of the lives of many people, including people with disabilities. Barriers to accessing air travel can lead to a reluctance to travel for these potential passengers. As early as the flight planning stage, options to facilitate accessibility are limited. At airports, passengers must travel long distances in areas where navigation is complex, and accessibility limited. Furthermore, few aircraft are accessible. The travel experience can have adverse effects on the health of people with disabilities. Practices are sometimes not inclusive, not always available, and may not address the full spectrum of possible needs. The objective of this study is to provide a state of art on accessibility features available to people with disabilities in the busiest international airports. Methods: A scoping review of practices in airport accessibility was done. A search strategy was deployed in 4 databases (Avery index to architectural periodicals, Medline, CINAHL, and Web of science). The official websites of the 35 busiest airports were exhaustively consulted. All information regarding accessibility measures and inclusive services were extracted. Results: 31 scientific articles, out of 3,640 screened, and all extracted data from airports' website were considered for synthesis. While efforts are made in major airports, there is a great inconsistency in accessibility features. Both facilitators and challenges are encountered by people with disabilities at every stage of air travel. These stages include journey planning; getting to and from the airport, obtain human assistance, navigate in the premises, check in, security screening, using facilities, boarding and disembarking, customs and immigration procedures, and luggage management. Discussion: Services need to be extensively planned, placing a significant burden on passengers. The disability-centric perspective disregard passengers' unique needs and capabilities, leading to a sense of dehumanization. The complexity of airport organizations, shared responsibilities, limited communication, training challenges can deter accessibility initiatives and create discomfort during travel. This study is the first step of a broader project supported by Canadian Accessibility Standards, focusing on enhancing inclusive accessibility in Canadian airports.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".