MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900752113 · doi:10.1353/hrq.2018.0058

Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology ed. by Jonathan Lazar & Michael Ashley Stein

2018· article· en· W2900752113 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Rights Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipHuman rightsSociologyDisability studiesInformation technologyLegislatureLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology ed. by Jonathan Lazar & Michael Ashley Stein Shu Wan (bio) Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology (Jonathan Lazar & Michael Ashley Stein eds., University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017) ISBN 978–0–8122–4923–1, 345 pages. How does advanced digital technology affect disabled people's lives? Jonathan Lazar and Michael Ashley Stein's recently edited work Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology offers an insightful answer. In this volume, multiple authors contribute their expertise to facilitate our exploration of the impact of hi-tech devices on disabled people's daily lives. Regarding the interactions between information technology (IT) and disability, [End Page 1052] scholarship within the past two decades has intensively focused on the rise of the Internet and its aftermaths. For example, according to Susanne M. Bruyère, William E. Erickson, and Sara Van Looy, in order to lessen workplace barriers for disabled persons we should "increase the organization's specific expertise or technical assistance on technology accessibility issues; train technical staff about accessibility issues, promote uniform guidelines to make Web-based employer processes accessible; and provide computer training for potential employees with disabilities."1 The main breakthrough in the volume is the authors' exploration of the triple association between human rights, disability, and information technology. Equally important, the authors highlight how recent IT-oriented legislative acts hinder rather than improve disabled people's accessibility in the boom of information technology. For people with disabilities, the evolution of information technology is often a double-edged sword, which not only improves their access to information but also creates new technology-based discrimination. As seen in Mary J. Zigler and David Sloan's chapter "Accessibility and Online Learning" (Chapter Ten and Jim Fruchterman's "E-books and Human Rights" (Chapter Nine), these innovative technologies indeed compensate for the "print disability" impeding disabled people's access to information and education. However, within the initial design of new information devices, disabled people's needs are basically ignored by engineers and managers. As Lazar and Stein pinpoint in the Introduction, "strikingly, some companies go beyond neglecting their legal and social obligations to include consumers with disabilities and actively resist making their hardware, software, and websites accessible."2 Subsequently, the inequality between the people with disabilities and others is exacerbated in light of the former's limited access to websites and social media. This limited access ultimately impedes their access to citizenship, especially since they lack access to the open data of the government. To decrease the negative effect of information technology, this volume presents a comprehensive model of domestic and international agencies' collaborations to advance the protection of the basic rights of people with disabilities. First of all, the US and Canadian governments take the lead in providing better high-technical services to people with disabilities. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the United States and the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulations of 2011 in Canada guarantee that people with disabilities have rights to access to better accessible facilities. Additionally, several national legislative acts converge into the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which offers a global legal framework affirming the basic rights of people with disabilities. As Ravi Malhotra and Megan A. Rusciano point out in Chapter Six, "using Provincial Laws to Drive a National Agenda", disability advocacy organizations play a significant role in propelling governments' increasing attention to people with disabilities and "promote the rights of persons with disabilities, even in jurisdiction without disability rights legislation, by employing [End Page 1053] progressive litigation strategies that aim to address the discriminatory nature of 'disability divide' and promote social inclusion more broadly."3 Peter Blanck's discussion of web eQuality in Chapter Three is illustrative of how disability scholars themselves are able to apply their work to the actual amelioration of disabled people's plight. Beyond petition for governmental attention and favors, Blanck demonstrates the value of scholarly discussion which paves the ground for disabled people's bright future. In geographic terms, Chapter Fifteen, "The Accessibility Infrastructure and the Global South" presents an international perspective on assistance to disabled people with accessibility to web resources. With emphasis on the expansion of disabled...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.304 · 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