Beyond Looking Back: Designing Interactive Technology Together to Support Blind People's Experience of Reminiscence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing attention in the HCI community on how technology could be designed to enrich experiences of reminiscence on past life experiences. Yet, this research has largely overlooked people with blindness. My doctoral research is oriented toward understanding and supporting blind people's preferences, wishes, dreams, desires and tensions around the experience of reminiscence. I plan to explore research goals by designing and creating an interactive system through a participatory design and co-speculation approach. The research prototype can be lived with blind people in their homes to support their experience of reminiscence. With reciprocity in mind, I aim to involve participants in exploring, designing and reflecting together in all stages of the proposed research. The initial work of understanding blind people's experiences of reminiscence is presented, and how these insights shape the next steps, along with the key values we seek to unpack in the later stages, are described.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it