Disability and Communication: A Consideration of Cross-disability Communication and Technology
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
The authors analyze the impact of marginalizing discourses surrounding disability on the design of communication options in online and virtual worlds. The primary focus is on conflict between participants in an ongoing study in Second Life, based on audio versus textual communication needs. Although the participants in the study are diagnosed with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/ Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, the difficulties faced in facilitating communication between the two groups reveal serious problems with current modes of live chatting which privilege one sense over the other, which would be relevant to other disabled populations. The inability to blend audio and textual communication creates an additional barrier for participants in the ongoing study in Second Life, and for visually and hearing impaired individuals who wish to use technology as a means of communicating with one another.Keywords: Disability Studies; Communication; Hearing Impairment; Vision Impairment; Discourse model of disability; Myalgic Encephalomyelitis; Accessibility
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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