MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005295167 · doi:10.1109/wse.2011.6081826

Keynote requirements for maintaining web access for hearing-impaired individuals: A ten-year perspective

2011· article· en· W2005295167 on OpenAlexafffund
Daniel M. Berry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDreamHearing impairedPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceSubject (documents)Interface (matter)Plan (archaeology)SightWorld Wide WebVisually impairedUser interfaceMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligencePsychologyAudiologyOperating systemHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first part of the title (after "Keynote:") is the title of a paper and talk presented by the speaker at WSE 2001, ten years ago in Florence, Italy. The abstract for the 2001 paper was: The current textual and graphical interfaces to computing, including the Web, is a dream come true for the hearing impaired. However, improved technology for voice and audio interface threaten to end this dream. Requirements are identified for continued access to computing for the hearing impaired. Consideration is given also to improving access to the sight impaired. In the keynote, the author plan to report everything that the author have learned to date about the subject.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.014
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0180.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207