MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1650240198 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v8i2.438

The World-Wide Inaccessible Web, Part 1: Browsing

2007· article· en· W1650240198 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jon Baggaley, Batchuluun Batpurev

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsFormative assessmentWorld Wide WebThe InternetSri lankaCalculatorSouth asiaComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies are reported, comparing the browser loading times of webpages created using common Web development techniques. The loading speeds were estimated in 12 Asian countries by members of the PANdora network, funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) to conduct collaborative research in the development of effective distance education (DE) practices. An online survey tool with stopwatch-type counter was used. Responses were obtained from Bhutan, Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Laos, Mongolia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. In most of the survey conditions, browser loading times were noted up to four times slower than commonly prescribed as acceptable. Failure of pages to load at all was frequent. The speediest loading times were observed when the online material was hosted locally, and was created either in the Docebo learning management system (LMS), or in the HTML option provided by the Moodle LMS. It is recommended that formative evaluation of this type should become standard practice in the selection and use of online programming techniques, in order to preserve the accessibility of the World-Wide-Web across large geographical distances, as for DE in the developing world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.380 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207