MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311681208 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15138

Preserving Safety, Dignity and Autonomy Through Multi-Modal Interactions: An Exploration into a Preferred Future of Design for Accessible Dressing Technology and E-Textiles

2022· dissertation· en· W4311681208 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Moore

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityAutonomyThematic analysisVisionPsychologyAssistive technologyClothingOccupational therapySet (abstract data type)EngineeringApplied psychologyHuman–computer interactionSociologyComputer scienceQualitative researchPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.According to the OTs, dressing technologies of the future should be multi-modal, preserve the dignity of the individual, be discreet, washable and durable, encourage autonomy, maintain safety and security, be customizable and be funded by governments or social groups.There are many people I wish to thank for their support and encouragement over the course of this thesis.Firstly, I wish to thank my thesis supervisors Dr. Audrey Girouard and Prof. Chantal Trudel, both of you have inspired and challenged me to grow and explore new avenues of knowledge in HCI and design.I am grateful for your neverending flexibility, wealth of knowledge and encouragement.You have both inspired me to expand my horizons and guided me through so much new learning in the midst of a global pandemic.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207