MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W643480618

User Evaluation of Accessible Services

2001· article· en· W643480618 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gavin Currie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTransportation and Mobility Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelpfulnessAgency (philosophy)Transport engineeringPublicityBusinessScheduleCLARITYAircrewEngineeringMarketingAeronauticsComputer sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future direction in barrier-free transportation is being charted by users sharing their travel experiences. The Taking Charge of Air Travel Survey is a Canadian best practice with international applicability. The central objective of the survey is to gather reliable statistical data on the accessibility of air travel in Canada for seniors and persons with disabilities. This information will be used to help the Canadian Transportation Agency (the Agency) evaluate the progress that has been made to remove obstacles to air travel and to set goals and priorities for improving access to air transportation. The results of the survey are expected to also be used by air carriers and airports to learn more about the experiences and concerns of travelers with disabilities and to gain insight into how to make their operations more accessible. In the summer of 2000 a real-time snapshot of transportation accessibility was taken. Seniors and persons with disabilities were approached by Agency field-staff at Canadian airports and asked to fill out a questionnaire which examined whether or not they feel they are being given access to the kind of service they require to prepare for and take flights with a minimum of obstacles. The survey dealt with issues such as: booking agents awareness of services and facilities for seniors and persons with disabilities; ease of access to airports; readability of flight schedule monitors; clarity of public address announcements; helpfulness of check-in personnel; facilitation of passenger boarding and baggage handling; seating and washroom arrangements; availability of wheelchairs on aircraft; and accommodations provided for service animals. The paper will present the findings of this Taking Charge of Air Travel User Satisfaction Survey. Policy implications of the findings will be highlighted. The application of these findings in future regulatory development and service provision will be discussed. The survey methodology will be presented to support the validity of the findings. A direct benefit of this survey methodology is giving consumers a hands-on opportunity to tell program planners and service providers how to best improve safety, security and independence for travelers with disabilities. The paper will illustrate how this participatory approach has applications in other countries around the world. Customer satisfaction is the yardstick of program effectiveness measured by this practical results-oriented methodology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.297
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTransportation and Mobility InnovationsFrench-language works237,207