MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038062246 · doi:10.1108/10775730610618990

Web accessibility: guidelines for busy administrators

2006· article· en· W2038062246 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHandbook of Business Strategy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsReach Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeb accessibilityOriginalityWeb standardsWeb Accessibility InitiativeOrder (exchange)Web designBusinessWeb siteValue (mathematics)World Wide WebWeb developmentWeb applicationComputer scienceInternet privacyPublic relationsKnowledge managementWeb application securityWeb serviceThe InternetPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this article is to guide administrators in making their organizations web sites accessible to people with disabilities. Design/methodology/approach It summarizes legal issues, access challenges for people with disabilities, accessibility guidelines and standards, accessibility tests, and steps that can be taken by administrators to assure that web sites are accessible. Findings The author concludes with steps that administrators can take to assure the accessibility of web sites. Originality/value It is made clear that administrators do not need a broad range of technical skills regarding web site design in order to direct staff to make organizational web sites accessible and provide them with the tools and guidance they need.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.274 · 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