An Evaluation of Ontario-Based Website Accessibility - A Comparison with US Findings
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
Over 1 in 6 people worldwide, have some form of disability. (World Health Organisation, 2016) Access to websites is seen as a fundamental aspect of a modern information society recognised by the United Nation Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). Despite decades of advocacy and a wealth of guidelines, testing studies suggest that most websites are still not accessible. This study evaluated and compared the accessibility of 50 of the most important websites in Ontario with those in the Baltimore area. Findings showed that the Ontario websites were less accessible than those in the Baltimore area study, despite longer exposure to the same accessibility rules. This suggests that there may be other factors that determine a website's level of accessibility. This paper discusses these potential explanations such as legislation, guidelines, implementation, awareness, and incentives for web developers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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