The Kenyan assistive technology ecosystem: a network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assistive technology is central to the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities. However, there remains limited access to assistive technology throughout much of the world, with particularly poor access in lower- and middle-income countries. Evaluating stakeholder engagement in assistive technology networks has been used as a successful strategy to understand and address gaps in the assistive technology ecosystem. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this research was to provide an overview of the Kenyan Assistive Technology Ecosystem, including available assistive products and related services, and an understanding of the nature and strength of relationships between stakeholders. METHODS: In this study, we employed an online qualitative stakeholder survey (2021) with representatives of organizations involved in assistive technology in Kenya. RESULTS: The assistive technology network in Kenya is distributed, with Government Ministries and Agencies and Organizations of persons with disabilities central to the network. The strength of relationships is concentrated on awareness and communication, with fewer organizations actively collaborating. Innovation training organizations are not yet well integrated into the network. CONCLUSIONS: Improving access to assistive technology in Kenya will benefit from greater collaboration amongst all assistive technology stakeholders.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".