Spatialising differently through ability and techné
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 reflects on multisensorial and multimodal processes by considering spatial design differently through three case studies in Canada and Belgium that involved persons with visual impairments. Our research provokes alternative ways of ‘seeing’ and ‘being’ in the world and we assert that the normative ways that designers think, act, and design for/with people who have disabilities can be shifted when considering ableism and techné together. Our studies and methods differ from other design processes and methods, in that we situate design within an understanding of ableism and techné, where we encourage designers to reflect upon their ability biases in order to break assumptions about the abilities and disabilities of users and/or codesigners. Through exploring, observing and creating, nuanced examinations into ability and techné are revealed that support an intimate bond and an empathic response towards shaping the designers’ understanding of participants embodied and practical knowledge. Our case study research expands the ways of knowing and doing in codesign through ableism and techné with people who are visually impaired, to create inspiring and meaningful designs through multisensorial processes that are inclusive of ‘seeing’ in order to spatialise differently.
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