ICT tools for addressing mobility needs of Rohingya refugees with disabilities: practical challenges and solutions
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
This paper presents practical challenges and solutions developed while leveraging ICT tools to address the mobility needs of refugees with physical disabilities in Cox's Bazar Rohingya camps. The study sheds light on the role of ICT tools in working with vulnerable groups in conflict-prone regions. Various ICT collaboration and communication tools were utilized, including audio-visual recordings, 3D printing of customized crutch shoes, and CAD-based production of assistive devices. The research highlights disconnections in communication, design, knowledge transfer, production, and device usage. Despite these challenges, the project succeeded in developing and disseminating AT devices to physically disabled refugees. The paper adds a longitudinal aspect by presenting the results of the follow-up visit that occurred one year after the project. The research emphasizes the importance of local ICT expertise, contextualized cultural knowledge, equitable engagement with local engineers, and collaboration with refugee beneficiaries to achieve successful design, development, and implementation of assistive devices.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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