Aids For Assisted Living Projects Benefit Both The Engineering Design Classroom And The Disabled Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Independent life becomes a challenge for individuals with disabilities when disability research and development fails to produce results that are beneficial for the disabled community. Poor research and development in disability research creates socially constructed barriers that not only offend the disabled community but also make means of attaining the maximum amount of independence more difficult. These barriers include the discriminatory actions and attitudes of non-disabled individuals as well as poor design in infrastructure, communication and transportation. Insufficient engineering and a lack of consideration of the needs and abilities of the disabled community has led to the incorporation of a Aids for Assisted Living project in a first year engineering curriculum. Engineering Communication and Design is a course that has developed two projects in collaboration with the disabled community in hopes of increasing awareness among students and staff as well as providing means for the community to be actively involved in product development and research. The first project focuses on increasing the independence of children with disabilities in play, through the design of toys and multifunctional play centers for a children's hospital. The second project focuses on the increase of independence for adults with disabilities around the home, specifically in the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and living room. Both of these Aids for Assisted Living projects were developed through extensive consultations with the disabled community with the common goal of starting to diminish some of the socially constructed barriers experienced in disability research. This is hoped to be achieved through student-research subject interaction as well as engineering principles and design. Engineering principles, incorporated through the foundation of the design trinity: familiarization, functionality and testing will be applied to disability design by students who will use these principles to create a fully functional prototype.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".