Shopping When You Are Deafblind: A Pre-Technology Test of New Methods for Face-to-Face Communication—Deafblindness and Face-to-Face Communication
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 presents the first-year results of a project that aimed to explore the feasibility of using a braille display and a smartphone in society to improve face-to-face communication for a person living with deafblindness, using a simulated communication situation. An applied experimental development design was implemented, followed by a pre-test in the community. Two clinicians and an engineer conducted communication tests with three communication partners with normal vision in a shopping mall. A blind clinician acting as deafblind bought an iPhone case and asked for the location of two stores. Communication partners did not report any difficulties, understood the exchanges, and were proud to have helped a person living with deafblindness. No communication breakdowns or keyboard input incidents occurred. Speech turns were not optimal but can be improved. Clinicians proposed a sequence of three training modules: (1) prior knowledge (basic operations for iPhone, software, and braille display), (2) methods for preparing a face-to-face discussion, and (3) processes during a face-to-face discussion. Results demonstrate the feasibility of using a tactile technological solution coupled with a smartphone to interact with unknown interlocutors. Technology trials form the groundwork for a 9-month case study, involving two individuals with deafblindness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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