IslamicHCI: Designing with and within Muslim Populations
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
In recent years there has been a growing body of work from the CHI communities that looks at designing for inclusivity and for the unique and specific constraints of diverse populations. This has included but is not limited to, work on designing within patriarchal contexts, designing around issues of gender and sexual orientation and designing around literacy. In tandem, local HCI initiatives such as ArabHCI [3] have emerged to address the misrepresentation of these populations in HCI research, highlighting the fact that Western originated design methods would require delicate adaptations to suit non-Western cultural contexts. With the same approach towards inclusivity and co-existence the aim of this workshop is to bring together HCI researchers and practitioners who engage in studies and interventions within Muslim majority communities around the world. The goal is to understand the Muslim identity and perceptions around it, the unique constraints and limitations within Muslim communities and to identify core issues and concerns within these populations. We will explore the following themes: refugees and islamophobia; Muslim feminism and Digital financial services.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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