Análisis de la percepción del Diseño Inclusivo de productos y servicios desde la visión del Diseño Estratégico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente trabajo surge a partir de una reflexión sobre el grado de inclusión en ciertos productos y servicios financieros en México. Se plantea la aplicación de una guía visual para analizar las acciones y percepción al respecto. Fue utilizada una herramienta creada en el Centro de Investigación de Diseño Inclusivo del Ontario College of Art & Design University que propone un modelo de autoevaluación para ayudar a visualizar los niveles de inclusión en diferentes dimensiones y que puede servir como un punto de partida para el diálogo y así poder diseñar estrategias que involucren a un mayor número de usuarios. Se muestra la experiencia de aplicación de esta herramienta, así como la interacción y los resultados de este ejercicio, presentando además un recorrido teórico que aborda los conceptos del diseño estratégico y su relación con la inclusión.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".