Public toilet provision for people with disabilities: a critical narrative literature review
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
Away-from-home toileting facilities actively determine our idea of the natural and the social and, by extent, of belongingness and sense of self. Yet inequitable access to workable and flexibly accessible (i.e., works for many bodies) toileting facilities produces unreasonable restrictions in the everyday lives of many disabled persons. This critical narrative literature review is centred on the intersection of disabled bodies and public toilets and engages with the question, ‘How do inaccessible public toilets create exclusionary urban landscapes for people with disabilities?’ Review findings are organized around five inductively derived themes that emerged from a critical reading of the literature about public toilet provision and disability. These themes include: (1) Ableism and psychoemotional disablism, (2) Participation and inclusion, (3) Identity and personhood, (4) Geographic maturity and spatial scripts, and (5) Gender and gender identity. We find that a spectrum of ableist attitudinal and applied approaches define the public toilet space.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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