Online Engagement of Facility Users in Rehabilitation Decision Making
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 paper outlines an exploratory case study implemented in a Canadian high school for engaging end-users in the re-design of their facilities to achieve the practical needs and comfort levels of users while also moving toward sustainable energy efficient building practices. The case study aimed to use interactive online systems to help facility users in sharing suggestions about possible changes to their building and empower them to take the lead in the re-design of their building. The observed outcomes are mixed. Facility users welcomed the interactive nature of the online tool. They offered suggestions for changes and improvements unique to their building and demonstrated an ability to overcome technical knowledge shortcomings. The discussions and interactions between participants appeared limited until participants were divided into smaller groups. Feedback from participants suggests that the overall process and online tool were well received. However, the general level of participation was lower than expected.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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