MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198550158 · doi:10.1080/14427591.2021.1970616

A transactional perspective on the everyday use of technology by people with learning disabilities

2021· article· en· W3198550158 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Education and Employment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEveryday lifeInformation and Communications TechnologyPsychologyTransactional leadershipLiteracyPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)SociologySocial psychologyPedagogyEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research points to the potential benefit of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for people with learning disabilities. However, there has been limited exploration of the interconnected nature of people and social context when considering how people with learning disabilities use ICTs. The result has been an overemphasis on (and assumptions of) the skill limitations and individual capacity of people with learning disabilities and their use of ICTs. Using a transactional perspective based on the work of John Dewey, this study aimed to explore the interrelationship of people with learning disabilities, ICTs, and the social world. Using a post-qualitative and theory-driven approach, we employed a transactional perspective (namely the interrelated concepts of embodiment, habit, and growth) to analyse interview data from 10 adult participants with learning disabilities. Our analysis suggested that when people have access and opportunity to co-mingle with technology, the technology can become embodied (feel like a part of them). ICTs were found to become an extension of participants’ bodies, enhancing their literacy, learning, and connection with others. Introducing the concept of conjoint action, we explored how human and nonhuman bodies are enmeshed in the formation of what we typically think of as human habits. Participants developed more-than-human habits of ICT use that they drew from to coordinate with their everyday life, navigating everyday challenges. Yet, in restrictive social contexts (or those influenced by underlying assumptions of the vulnerability of people with learning disabilities), participants were less likely to embody ICTs in the rhythms of everyday life and experience benefits of ICT use. Our findings shed light on the entangled, transactional relationship of people and the social world, and present occupation as the conjoint action of human and nonhuman bodies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.317 · 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