MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235422760 · doi:10.1145/1168987

Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility

2006· paratext· en· W4235422760 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Computer sciencePleasureSpecial needsUniversal designGeneral partnershipMultimediaWorld Wide WebPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is our great pleasureIt is our great pleasure to welcome you to the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS 2006. This year's conference continues its tradition of being the premier forum for presentation of research results and experience reports on leading edge issues of the design, development, and application of computer-based methodologies to achieve the objectives of universal access, with special attention to the needs of people of all ages and with different capabilities. Computer and Information Technologies have re-designed the way modern society operates. In particular, they have identified new avenues to assist individuals with special needs and provide tools and resources to alleviate the traditional barriers encountered by people with disabilities. For example, speech generation systems have assisted people with visual impairments and blindness, voice recognition has helped people with motor impairments, and multi-modal presentations have been shown to be effective in helping people with learning disabilities. The ASSETS series of conferences is aimed at providing a technical forum for presenting and disseminating innovative research results that cover either (1) applications of computing and information technologies to provide assistive systems to people with special needs, or (2) investigation of computing technologies and their use by people with disabilities. As in previous years, the conference is organized in such a way as to promote an open forum where researchers, practitioners, educators, and students can present their ideas as formal papers, posters, demonstrations, as well as engage in dialogue, sharing experiences, objectives, accomplishments and different perspectives. In this tradition, ASSETS 2006 is developed as a single-track conference, where formal presentations, interactive sessions, panels, and social events alternate throughout the conference programme.This year, the conference opened with a plenary address by Dr. Sara J. Czaja, Professor in the Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Industrial Engineering at the University of Miami. Her presentation was "Technology and Older Adults: Designing for Accessibility and Usability". The technical programme was composed of 28 formal papers, selected by the international programme committee out of a total of 78 submissions. The accepted submissions represent the work of 94 authors from Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Japan, UK, and the USA. The papers were organized in 7 thematic sessions. The programme also includes 2 sessions dedicated to the presentation of cutting-edge results and work-in-progress, in the form of demonstrations and posters, chaired by John Black. Posters and demos were submitted in response to a separate call for papers, which generated 45 submissions, of which 34 were selected for presentation. A 2-page abstract for each poster and demonstration appears in these proceedings. Both technical papers and poster/demonstration papers were subjected to a competitive peer-review process, ensuring that the papers included in these proceedings represent the state-of-the-art in the field. The programme was completed by the student research competition and the doctoral consortium. The doctoral consortium, chaired by Yeliz Yesilada and Andrew Sears, offers an opportunity to doctoral students to present their ideas to both peers and a selected pool of experts. New for this year is the SIGACCESS student research competition (sponsored by Microsoft Research) and chaired by Clayton Lewis. The SRC differs from the doctorial consortium in that entrants can be undergraduate or graduate students. A small number of semi finalists were chosen by the judges to present their work in the conference and of those three students were designated as finalists by the judges, and entered in to the Grand Finals of ACM's Student Research Competition.Following the tradition of the previous ASSETS, SIGACCESS will present two awards: the SIGACCESS Best Technical Paper Award and the SIGACCESS Best Student Paper Award. The success of a conference depends on the contributions of many people. Some are named in the following organizing roster, but many more have contributed to the development of this event. We wish to thank all of them for their truly exceptional job.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207