(In)Accessible Design: Lived Experiences of Adulted Wheeled Mobility Device Users when Maneuvering in the Built Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many people with disabilities, using wheeled mobility devices (i.e. wheelchairs, scooters; WhMDs) increases quality of life. However, current literature reports numerous built environment barriers that restrict WhMD access or maneuverability. Despite these known barriers, there is limited attention to understanding how these barriers impact WhMD users’ experience of moving within the built environment. This thesis aims to identify how public space design (i.e. space dimensions, operating features) impacts WhMD users’ maneuvering and use of public spaces. Thirteen adult WhMD users living in Canada completed 1-hour interviews via MS Teams or telephone. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed. Participants highlighted enabling and/or disabling built environment design elements. These features directly influenced how participants encountered (in)accessibility, shaping responses to and perceptions of (in)accessible spaces. These findings stress the impactful role of the built environment in shaping (in)accessibility, highlighting important considerations for public space design and for future accessibility recommendations or guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".