MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4235422760 · doi:10.1145/1168987

Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility

2006· paratext· en· W4235422760 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typeparatext
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPresentation (obstetrics)Computer sciencePleasureSpecial needsUniversal designGeneral partnershipMultimediaWorld Wide WebPsychologyPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

It is our great pleasureIt is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS 2006. This year's conference continues its tradition of being the premier forum for presentation of research results and experience reports on leading edge issues of the design, development, and application of computer-based methodologies to achieve the objectives of universal access, with special attention to the needs of people of all ages and with different capabilities. Computer and Information Technologies have re-designed the way modern society operates. In particular, they have identified new avenues to assist individuals with special needs and provide tools and resources to alleviate the traditional barriers encountered by people with disabilities. For example, speech generation systems have assisted people with visual impairments and blindness, voice recognition has helped people with motor impairments, and multi-modal presentations have been shown to be effective in helping people with learning disabilities. The ASSETS series of conferences is aimed at providing a technical forum for presenting and disseminating innovative research results that cover either (1) applications of computing and information technologies to provide assistive systems to people with special needs, or (2) investigation of computing technologies and their use by people with disabilities. As in previous years, the conference is organized in such a way as to promote an open forum where researchers, practitioners, educators, and students can present their ideas as formal papers, posters, demonstrations, as well as engage in dialogue, sharing experiences, objectives, accomplishments and different perspectives. In this tradition, ASSETS 2006 is developed as a single-track conference, where formal presentations, interactive sessions, panels, and social events alternate throughout the conference programme.This year, the conference opened with a plenary address by Dr. Sara J. Czaja, Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Industrial Engineering at the University of Miami. Her presentation was "Technology and Older Adults: Designing for Accessibility and Usability". The technical programme was composed of 28 formal papers, selected by the international programme committee out of a total of 78 submissions. The accepted submissions represent the work of 94 authors from Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Japan, UK, and the USA. The papers were organized in 7 thematic sessions. The programme also includes 2 sessions dedicated to the presentation of cutting-edge results and work-in-progress, in the form of demonstrations and posters, chaired by John Black. Posters and demos were submitted in response to a separate call for papers, which generated 45 submissions, of which 34 were selected for presentation. A 2-page abstract for each poster and demonstration appears in these proceedings. Both technical papers and poster/demonstration papers were subjected to a competitive peer-review process, ensuring that the papers included in these proceedings represent the state-of-the-art in the field. The programme was completed by the student research competition and the doctoral consortium. The doctoral consortium, chaired by Yeliz Yesilada and Andrew Sears, offers an opportunity to doctoral students to present their ideas to both peers and a selected pool of experts. New for this year is the SIGACCESS student research competition (sponsored by Microsoft Research) and chaired by Clayton Lewis. The SRC differs from the doctorial consortium in that entrants can be undergraduate or graduate students. A small number of semi finalists were chosen by the judges to present their work in the conference and of those three students were designated as finalists by the judges, and entered in to the Grand Finals of ACM's Student Research Competition.Following the tradition of the previous ASSETS, SIGACCESS will present two awards: the SIGACCESS Best Technical Paper Award and the SIGACCESS Best Student Paper Award. The success of a conference depends on the contributions of many people. Some are named in the following organizing roster, but many more have contributed to the development of this event. We wish to thank all of them for their truly exceptional job.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,269
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,899

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0080,007
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,2690,160

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,347
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations11
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesTravaux en français237 207