Supporting Social Inclusion with DIY-ATs: Perspectives of Kenyan Caregivers of Children with Cognitive Disabilities
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
Do-It-Yourself assistive technologies (DIY-ATs) that can be designed, fabricated, or customized by non-technical individuals can enable people with disabilities and their community members to create and customize their own technological solutions. DIY-ATs may better fit user needs than mass-produced alternatives. Recently, researchers have started to explore the possibilities and challenges of using DIY-ATs in contexts other than the Global North, where access to digital ATs is limited. Previous research has not yet studied the perspectives of caregivers of children with disabilities towards these technologies. We present findings from an interview study with caregivers of children and youth with cognitive disabilities in Western Kenya who used a DIY-AT system as a research probe. Participants described how negative beliefs about people with disabilities result in social exclusion and discrimination and explained how increased opportunities for social interaction and learning mediated through DIY and other customizable ATs for their children could support their inclusion, safety, and access to future opportunities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it