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
This paper provides an evaluation of the SingleTapBraille keyboard, designed to assist people with no or low vision in using touchscreen smartphones. This application allows blind users to input characters based on braille patterns. To assess SingleTapBraille, this study compares its performance with that of the commonly used QWERTY keyboard. We conducted an evaluation study with 7 blind participants to examine the performance of both keyboards on Android platforms. Overall, participants were able to quickly adjust to SingleTapBraille and type on touchscreen devices using their knowledge of Braille patterns within fifteen to twenty minutes of introduction to the system. The SingleTapBraille keyboard was better than the QWERTY keyboard in terms of both speed and accuracy, indicating that SingleTapBraille represents an improvement over existing alternatives in making touchscreen keyboards more accessible for blind users. Based on the evaluation results and the feedback of our participants, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of previous keyboards that have been used by participants, as well as those of SingleTapBraille. In doing so, we consider possible design improvements for the future development of accessible keyboards for blind users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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