Identifying the best web accessibility workflows for legacy archival description data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the challenges and solutions associated with making archival PDF finding aids accessible to blind and low-vision users, particularly those who rely on screen readers. The project, conducted at the University of Toronto, highlights the barriers posed by unstructured PDFs, which fail to meet the various accessibility standards specified in the WWW Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. Three methods were tested to improve accessibility: manual remediation, PDF-to-HTML conversion, and data migration into the Access to Memory (AtoM) platform. The results indicated that both the manual and automated remediation methods were either too costly or ineffective, while the most promising approach involved migrating the description data into AtoM via CSV import, enhancing both accessibility and search functionality. The paper underscores the need for ongoing funding and professional expertise to address web accessibility issues in archival settings and outlines future steps to improve PDF generation within AtoM for broader application.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".