Development and Validation of Virtual Reality Scenarios to Improve Disability Awareness among Museum Employees
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
To improve inclusion of persons with disabilities (PWD), it is important to create suitable physical and social environments. This can be done by improving awareness about disability, specifically for employees working in the service and cultural sectors. Virtual reality (VR) simulation can be advantageous by providing an engaging experience highlighting physical accessibility issues, as well as social interactions with virtual avatars. This study’s objective was to validate the content of two disability awareness VR scenarios in museum employees and individuals with disabilities in terms of perceived usefulness. Five PWD and seven museum employees experienced two VR scenarios illustrating a museum visit for a person with low vision or using a wheelchair. The scenarios consisted of different scenes such as finding an accessible entrance and interacting with virtual employees. Participants were interviewed about their experience, with questions related to the realism of the scenarios and their perceived usefulness. Four main themes were identified specifically: emotions, experience, usefulness, and realism. Our scenarios were seen as useful in describing social and physical barriers experienced by PWD. VR can be a valid tool to promote disability awareness among employees in a sociocultural setting, representing a step towards the inclusion of PWD.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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