The social and economic value of wheelchair user homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People who use wheelchairs can benefit in many ways from living in homes which are designed to meet their needs. They can enjoy a much greater independence and ability to do everyday tasks such as showering, cooking, using all areas of the house and garden, being able to work, and using all the amenities of their home. This can lead to an overall increase in their confidence and wellbeing, including engagement in social and community life. Accessible homes can also be much safer, reducing risks of accidents or falls at home, and considerably reduce the need for other people to be regularly available to assist with everyday life – including family members, informal carers, or local authority care and support staff. Recent proposals to change planning regulations will mean, once implemented, that all new homes are required to meet an inclusive design standard called the ‘accessible and adaptable design standard’, which is set out in building regulations in ‘Approved Document M’. This has been widely welcomed by many disabled people and others, as it will provide homes that can be adapted to meet many of the changing needs of households over time. But there are still no regulations which require the building of a basic proportion of new homes to a standard which meets the needs of wheelchair users. LSE Housing and Communities were commissioned by Habinteg Housing Association to review the existing evidence around the potential benefits to individual wheelchair users and the public purse of increasing the availability of wheelchair accessible housing to meet current needs, and compare those benefits to the additional costs of building to that accessible standard. We also interviewed 17 wheelchair users about their experiences of living in, or their lack of, accessible housing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".