Progress in Wheelchair Securement: the Last 10 Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheelchair securement is an issue in public transit that should have been resolved in the first few years after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar legislation in other countries. At the international level, efforts have been on going to develop international standards for securement systems, but unfortunately, not all the countries represented on the international standards development committees necessarily reflect a unified opinion of the country represented. Specifically, in the USA, the ADA requires that wheelchairs be secured such that they will not move more than two inches in any direction, even during a crash of the transporting vehicle. This requirement has been of great interest, to the existing securement industry and to wheelchair manufacturers. The former have been interested because of the potential market and the latter because of the liability associated with saying that their wheelchairs can be used on public transit. In the 10 years since the ADA was put into law, some major advances have been made in securement technology but the securement systems currently in use are essentially the same as they were a decade or more ago. The reason for this difference between what is available and what is in use is that standards for securement have been very slow in coming. In the paper a brief introduction and background is provided about securement before turning to the review of work done on securement systems and the current status of wheelchair securement in public transit in the last decade in Canada, Australia, the USA and Europe. Current work on securement, particularly in the area of standards, is then reviewed and recommendations for speeding the acceptance of advanced securement technologies are presented.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".