Assessing the impact of urban amenities on people with disabilities in London: A multiscale geographically weighted regression 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
Disability groups rely on urban infrastructure more than the general urban population. This study examines the spatial distribution of urban amenities in relation to disability groups in London . 17 independent variables were selected from multi-source data and categorized into four groups: green space and amenity, land use, basic service, and transportation network. Employing Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR), and Multiscale Geographically Weighted Regression (MGWR) models, the analysis found no significant correlation between disability density and amenities such as supermarkets, bus stations, and subway stations. However, the results revealed pronounced inequities in green space accessibility and an over-concentration of commercial areas in Inner London. These findings underscore the need for targeted policy interventions to improve access to green spaces, enhance inclusivity in urban planning for individuals with disabilities, and implement data-driven resource allocation strategies to address spatial disparities in urban amenities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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