How Much Do You Know About Your Users? A Study of Developer Awareness About Diverse Users
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
In our increasingly diverse digital landscape, under-standing and accommodating the needs of various user groups is crucial. Our research paper investigates the understanding and practices that developers have of considering diversity dimensions within their user base, in terms of Race and Ethnicity, Gender, Disability, Neurodiversity, and Age. In this research preview, we report on a preliminary mixed-method study that used an online questionnaire and interviews to collect input on developers' perceptions and measures for considering user diversity and inclusion (D&I) in the products they develop. Our findings indicate that developers from some underrepresented groups tend to exhibit greater awareness of user diversity, and their membership might have a positive effect on their team and company's perception of D&I. Our study highlights the need to enhance developer empathy and broaden their awareness about diversity. This research highlights the pivotal role of developers in creating inclusive software and underscores the importance of integrating diversity and inclusion principles into software development processes for a more representative and inclusive digital environment.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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