MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037812907 · doi:10.1080/10400435.2013.853329

Use of Assistive Technologies in Academic Libraries: A Survey

2013· article· en· W2037812907 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssistive Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssistive technologyMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article attempts to highlight the use of assistive technologies in academic libraries in India, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. It dwells upon the use and importance of assistive technologies in general and their use for visually challenged learners in particular. Further, it gives suggestions for implementing assistive technologies in academic libraries for making visually challenged students self-reliant learners in accomplishing their academic and research pursuits. The present study adopted convenience sampling for collecting the data, which was collected between December 15, 2012 and January 18, 2013.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.254 · 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