Preserving Safety, Dignity and Autonomy Through Multi-Modal Interactions: An Exploration into a Preferred Future of Design for Accessible Dressing Technology and E-Textiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ready-to-wear clothing is often designed for individuals without disabilities, which can create dressing barriers and challenges for individuals with disabilities, especially those with motor coordination, cognitive challenges sensory and self-regulation issues. In two studies we explored the visions of occupational therapists for the future of dressing through smart clothing and dressing technology. Using co-design and design fiction online workshops, we were able to gather a rich data set that included interview data, virtual sticky notes, creative writing exercises and storyboards. We coded and used thematic and abductive analysis to explore the data and created design fictions to explore the future of dressing technology. Occupational therapists identified challenges that impact dressing tasks, and requirements for the design of technology situated in the near future that would support the autonomy of disabled people. They identified that instructional technology (such as clothing that provides sequencing cues and task instructions) could offer people with disabilities support for dressing challenges.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".