MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362580014 · doi:10.29173/jchla29669

Celebrating Inclusive Libraries by Applying Universal Design: A Guide (book review)

2023· article· fr· W4362580014 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniversal designComputer scienceWorld Wide WebLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carli Spina's admirably readable Creating inclusive libraries by applying universal design provides librarians with a practical, theoretically grounded introduction to Universal Design (UD) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL).This book guides librarians in understanding and applying UD and UDL principles to make their products, spaces, and services more inclusive and welcoming.The following quote captures a key theme in this book: "To remain relevant when serving […] a diverse group of people with widely varied needs, libraries will need to focus on the type of flexibility, equity, and attention to user experience at the heart of Universal Design" [1].UD is "an approach to design defined by its focus on the user and how it contemplates who the user is" (Spina) [1].Historically, it was based in the need to design spaces to reduce barriers, particularly for individuals with disabilities.This book argues that the principles of Universal Design can be applied more broadly to reducing barriers to library spaces, services, and products, and making them welcoming to people with widely varied needs.Extending the concept of inclusion to the educational sphere, UDL is a framework that adapts UD "concepts and principles so as to make them meaningful in a broad range of educational settings and scenarios" [1].Spina holds a JD from the University of Chicago Law School, an MLIS from Simmons GSLIS, and an MEd from the Harvard Graduate School of Education.She has contributed to work on equity, diversity, and inclusion in a variety of capacities, including serving in leadership roles on LITA's Diversity and Inclusion Committee, and the ASCLA Library Services to People with Visual or Physical Disabilities that Prevent Them from Reading Standard Print Interest Group.Her experience and educational background

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 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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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