Conceptions of accessibility among persons with spinal cord injury in Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessibility is defined according to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) as a prerequisite for an independent life for persons with a disability. To explore how accessibility is understood or experienced by persons with a spinal cord injury, 45 persons with spinal cord injury living in Finland were interviewed. The analysis approach was phenomenographic, resulting in three main categories of conceptions of accessibility, illustrated through direct quotations. These three levels of understanding are Assumptions, Experiences, and Actions. Accessibility was primarily understood as accessibility in the built environment, and the impact of climate as well as personal choices regarding one’s own actions. Environmental and personal factors either facilitated or hindered the experience of accessibility. Accumulation of varying experiences about accessibility increased the interpretation of the person-environment connection on one’s own functioning and requirements towards accessibility, thus promoting the agency of persons with spinal cord injuries. Points of interestThis study explored the variations of conceptions of accessibility experienced or understood by persons with spinal cord injury in Finland.The analysis resulted in three ways of experiencing accessibility: 1. Assumptions, 2. Experiences, and 3. Actions. The findings indicate that accessibility can be understood in various ways depending on assumptions related to accessibility, experiences, shared information, and the knowledge accumulated in the interaction between individual and the environment.Experiences of accessibility were primarily related to personal, physical, social, and attitudinal environmental factors, the person-environment connection, and the interpretations of their impact on one’s own functioning and accessibility requirements. Respondents identified environmental or personal factors as barring or facilitating accessibility.The interaction between the individual and the Northern environment, including four seasons, lead to various strategies for overcoming climate-caused barriers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".