Income-Generating Products for People with Disabilities in the Majority World: Understanding the Complexities of Participatory Design in Rural Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is based on examining income-generating devices for people with disabilities in Uganda.The project involved having solar-charging kiosks manufactured in the Kasese region.These devices were given to people with disabilities in the area by a local organization so that they could start a business charging mobile phones and generate an income for their family.The researcher looked for insights in multiple areas, such as if they could generate an adequate income, whether it created independence or dependency, if the design of the device was appropriate for the context, and gaining a better understanding of the complexities of this type of project.The research was conducted using questionnaires filled out by volunteers of the local organization, as well as observations and in-person interviews during two weeks of field-work in Uganda.The findings show that these types of projects are complex, and that more case studies would help to shed light on this emerging design field.The researcher also discovered many insights related to the device itself, including: people would bring it inside at night to light their homes; people had differing abilities to generate income; and recipients needed multiple revenue sources to earn a living.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".