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
Given that art-making can support self-expression and social integration, there is a growing interest in the research community in developing more accessible artistic computer inputs. However, the conditions needed to achieve mastery of creative processes, particularly for artists with motor impairments, remain to be explored. We look at implementing new adaptive technologies that leverage more natural interactions on the drawing tools, balancing the challenges and skills artists need to navigate their creative stages. We describe the findings of a qualitative first study involving interviews with 15 digital artists with upper limb motor impairments. We analyze the challenges related to artistic workflows, internal and external perceptions, and what disrupts their creative processes. We share a second study where six digital artists with upper limb motor impairments tested an adaptive stylus which captured their pen-based interactions, triggering accessibility features participants thought could improve their artistic workflows. Future work will address the cognitive load introduced by pen gestures, explore strategies to improve detection accuracy to build trust in the technology, and continue emphasizing the value of training personalized models over traditional accessibility features. Our research aims to contribute to designing inclusive technologies by prioritizing the creative aspects of artistic production.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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