Improving Access to Online Community Services for People With Disabilities Following the COVID‐19 Pandemic Through Co‐Creation Workshops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community organizations supporting people with disabilities (PWD) initiated or increased their online services to maintain their support during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The objective of this study is to report on the collaborative development of solutions to improve access to online community services for PWD. This study followed a multiple‐case design to report on the co‐creation process engaged by four community organizations. A four‐step methodology for co‐creation was applied and documented by field notes. Cases were analyzed separately, and then, cross‐case analyses were performed. Eighteen members and employees of community organizations participated in co‐creation workshops (3 per organization). Co‐created solutions to accessibility of online services were developed in each case, and three out of the four organizations chose to implement them. The co‐created solutions are expected to improve access to online services and satisfaction among PWD. A similar approach of co‐creation could benefit the development of other online community services for 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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".