Low vision assistive technology device usage and importance in daily occupations
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
UNLABELLED: When selected, accepted and used appropriately, low vision assistive technology devices (ATDs) have the potential to facilitate the performance of occupations that lead to positive outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This paper identifies some low vision ATDs currently used and explores their relative importance for the performance of daily occupation from participants' perspectives. PARTICIPANTS: 17 adults (M=56 years old, SD=15.8) with low vision we0re recruited through a purposeful sampling strategy. METHODS: Through one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews, ATD usage data, ranking of perceived importance of ATDs and verbal data were collected from the participants. RESULTS: A total of 124 devices were identified by the participants of which 104 (83.9%) were used and 20 (16.1%), mostly adaptive computer technologies, were not. 22 (21%) mainstream aids to daily living were identified (large monitor, large screen TV, DVD player) and they ranked high in terms of perceived importance by the participants for daily activities. Verbal feedback from participants supplemented this finding. CONCLUSION: Concepts related to usage and ranking of importance of ATDs for daily occupations are multi-faceted and complex(e.g. combination of devices used, multiple equal rankings, etc.). The authors suggested future research opportunities to examine these concepts through qualitative means.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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