MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

User-Centered Design (Part 2-Age, Gender and Accessibility)

2004· book-chapter· en· W2477370335 on OpenAlexaff
Katy Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2004
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)PerceptionUniversal designCultural diversityComputer sciencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the previous chapter you looked at the challenges involved in writing for diverse audiences. You became aware that diversity is not limited to international audiences, but that just one group may contain learners with varying learning styles, native languages, and cultural backgrounds. This chapter focuses the work on accessibility in the better-known sense. That is, accessibility issues such as levels of cognitive development, health, mobility, and perceptual factors which inform user-centered design practices. This chapter includes gender and technical access issues as well.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.008

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207