MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402001824 · doi:10.1080/09687599.2024.2397731

Why app-hailed transportation remains inadequately accessible to wheelchair users

2024· article· en· W4402001824 on OpenAlexaff
Mahtot Gebresselassie

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability & Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyInternet privacyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with disabilities in general and wheelchair users in particular face challenges in transportation services hailed using smartphone apps such as as Uber and Lyft. Although some riders who use wheelchairs use the services successfully, others experience various challenges from shortage of accessible vehicles, service denial by drivers, and long wait times. This article explains how in the U.S. these companies position themselves as technology platforms, an intermediary entity between drivers and riders, and therefore not accountable for accessibility regulations and labor standards. This positioning leads to inaccessible services for wheelchair users. This paper highlights considerations for change that can improve the prospects of wheelchair users to travel using these apps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability & SocietySame topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207