Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heritage buildings, which symbolize the pride of a nation, were built prior to the development of current standards, including those for accessibility. As nations strive for equity, diversity, and inclusion, creating barrier-free environments, including heritage buildings, becomes imperative. This study aims to identify the “true” accessibility barriers of heritage buildings. Accordingly, a three-part study was conducted: review current standards and best practices; document and investigate the accessibility lived experiences of people with different abilities in heritage buildings; and analyze and discuss the data. The findings revealed that 19%, 17%, and 64% of reported “true” barriers per building were attributed to the conflict between accessibility and heritage preservation, accessibility standard clarity/specificity, and accessibility standard compliance, respectively. In comparison, accessibility-trained professionals attributed 16%, 39%, and 45% of their assessments to the same categories. A significant number of accessibility barriers in heritage buildings can be mitigated by applying current standards. The accessibility needs of people with cognitive/intellectual disabilities are the least addressed and understood by the standards and accessibility-trained professionals.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".