MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402442236 · doi:10.70121/001c.123587

Enhancing Inclusive Design by Balancing Digital Innovation and Physical Accessibility

2024· article· en· W4402442236 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Rong

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarly review . · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessUniversal designComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionProcess managementKnowledge managementWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even with recent advancements, significant challenges persist in the majority of subway systems globally, ranging from physical barriers to information accessibility and poor overall user experience. This paper contributes to the conversation surrounding inclusivity in urban planning by investigating how infrastructure development, technology integration, and policy changes affect the accessibility of Line 1 of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). Using a comprehensive literature review, this study contextualizes the concept of accessibility within the broader framework of disability rights movements and social perceptions while examining Line 1’s accessibility initiatives in the context of current global trends. Moreover, society should aim to guarantee that every individual experiences the highest level of freedom, irrespective of their characteristics, for everyone is susceptible to disability, whether due to aging or injuries. Ultimately, this paper concludes that the Toronto Transit Commission’s current app development focused initiatives fail to sufficiently address gaps in physical infrastructure, as evidenced by an analysis of other accessibility initiatives, layout practicality, and various implications. The study recommends prioritizing physical modifications, such as strategically placed elevators, clear signage, and designated wheelchair areas, to improve the efficacy of other initiatives. By laying a foundation for continued exploration, this study aims to inspire global efforts in improving public transportation accessibility, fostering greater economic participation and independence for individuals with disabilities, social integration, and ridership satisfaction for everyone.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarly review .Same topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207