Development of the public information and communication technology assessment tool
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
PURPOSE: Public information and communication technologies, such as information kiosks, automated banking machines and ticket dispensers, allow people to access services in a convenient and timely manner. However, the development of these technologies has occurred largely without consideration of access by people with disabilities. Inaccessible technical features make operation of a public technology difficult and barriers in the environment create navigational challenges, limiting the opportunity of people with disabilities to use these devices and access the services they provide. This paper describes the development of a tool that individuals, disability advocacy groups, business owners, healthcare providers, and urban planners can use to evaluate the accessibility of public technologies and the surrounding environment. Evaluation results can then be used to develop recommendations and advocate for technical and environmental changes to improve access. METHODS: Tool development consisted of a review of the literature and key Canadian Standards Association documents, task analysis, and consultation with accessibility experts. Studies of content validity, tool usability, inter-rater and test-retest reliability were conducted in sites across Canada. RESULTS: Accessibility experts verified the content validity of the tool. The current version of the tool has incorporated the findings of a usability study. Initial testing indicated excellent agreement for inter-rater and test-retest reliability scores. CONCLUSIONS: Social exclusion can arise when public technologies are not accessible. This newly developed instrument provides detailed information that can be used to advocate for more accessible and inclusive public information and communication technologies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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