The Effect of Wheelchair Users on the Egress Time of Pedestrian Crowds: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Egress time, or how long it takes a pedestrian crowd to pass through a bottleneck during egress, is a crucial metric for safety and capacity considerations. It has been suggested that heterogeneity in the composition of pedestrian crowds - such as variability in mobility, age, or the presence of social groups - could affect egress times. However, only a few empirical studies have addressed this issue. To solidify insights from the existing empirical evidence, we present a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to quantify if the presence of wheelchair users in pedestrian crowds increases egress times. We identified nine studies, all based on controlled experiments, that used a comparable layout in which groups of participants had to move through a bottleneck and compared conditions with and without wheelchair users present. The meta-analysis confirmed the findings from the individual studies. The difference in egress time between conditions with wheelchair users present and those without was close to three standard deviations, indicating a strong effect. We found no evidence for publication bias, such as the under-reporting of non-significant findings. Our work presents a quantitative basis for adjusting expected egress times depending on occupant characteristics. It suggests that the behavioural consequences of crowd heterogeneity are safety relevant and require further investigation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it