‘If you leave it with me I will work it out’: The benefits and challenges in using mainstream devices as assistive technologies for people with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing availability of mobile technologies incorporating universal design features has provided a more affordable assistive technology solution for many people with disabilities. However, several authors caution that there are possible negative by-products associated with this trend, highlighting the need for further research into the benefits and challenges of using mainstream devices as assistive technologies. This paper reports the interim findings of a project involving the trial of iPads with two participant co-researchers who have physical disabilities and ten residents of a high support institution for people with disabilities. The project methodology involved: 1) evaluation of participants' use of the devices; 2) pre- and post-intervention testing using goal attainment scaling; 3) training and ongoing support in use of the device; and 4) analysis of user satisfaction with the iPad using a modified version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology instrument. The study contributes to the growing evidence-base exploring the potential of mainstream mobile devices as assistive technologies and highlights areas for further research and development.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".