Diversifying Accessibility Education: Presenting and Evaluating an Interdisciplinary Accessibility Training Program
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
There is a growing emphasis to educate STEM students about accessibility, so that they can become accessibility advocates. We introduce a community-based accessibility training program that brings together graduate students in STEM and related fields, called the Research and Education in Accessibility, Design, and Innovation (READi). Going beyond academic degree training, this program includes five training components: (1) a graduate course on accessibility and inclusive design, (2) an Action Team Project (ATP), (3) a Retreat, (4) Workshops, and (5) a Symposium. As our initial program assessment, we analyzed 22 students’ written program reflection and found three themes that highlight what students learned about accessibility and professional skills (Theme 1: Learning Outcomes), what students planned on doing after the training (Theme 2: Future Endeavors), and how students want the program to improve (Theme 3: Program Improvement). We advance accessibility education by introducing an innovative training that embraces collaboration among local community, faculty, and multidisciplinary cohorts of graduate students.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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