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 article reports on the shopping experiences of people with visual impairment (n = 7) and offers an alternative way to understand their needs. Our study adopted taskscape theory and multiple-method ethnographic perspectives to obtain viewpoints of shoppers with visual impairment and examined shopping activities through two lenses (wayfinding and signage) to determine criteria for improved design. We used taskscape theory to gain insights into how this population perceives signage as well as a participatory, human ecological, systems approach to identify the complexity of wayfinding among people with visual impairment. We used observation, notetaking, photography, and interviews to gain insights into personal and social factors affecting participants’ experiences when navigating in shopping malls. Our data-driven results include a characterization of seven activities—pre-shopping, traveling to the mall, mall navigation, in-store navigation, merchandise evaluation, checkout, and post-shopping—within the shopping taskscape of shoppers with visual impairments that help assess user needs regarding signage and wayfinding. The shopping taskscape provides a systems approach to advance ideas around designing complex environments for able-bodied people and those with disability.
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