MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281555505 · doi:10.1145/3532525.3532534

How should metaverse augment humans with disabilities?

2022· article· en· W4281555505 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Marc Seigneur, Mohamed-Amine Choukou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaverseComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPossible worldAugmented realityVirtual realityEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The metaverse is a new paradigm made possible by emerging technologies like virtual reality, augmented reality, and blockchains. Humans with disabilities should not be excluded from the metaverse and should have equitable access to it. However, it is unclear which options humans with physical and cognitive disabilities will have in the current metaverse to use and represent themselves – and feel included. Our research seeks to determine how humans with disabilities should be augmented in the metaverse, as well as whether the current metaverse permits such augmentations. If not, what features should be added to make the metaverse more accessible and inclusive? In this regard, we have begun to investigate one of the most well-known decentralized metaverses, namely Decentraland.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207