MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards User-Focused Cross-Domain Testing: Disentangling Accessibility, Usability, and Fairness

2025· article· W4417132205 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilitySoftwareDomain (mathematical analysis)Software developmentGovernment (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fairness testing is increasingly recognized as fundamental in software engineering, especially in the domain of data-driven systems powered by artificial intelligence. However, its practical integration into software development may pose challenges, given its overlapping boundaries with usability and accessibility testing. In this tertiary study, we explore these complexities using insights from 12 systematic reviews published in the past decade, shedding light on the nuanced interactions among fairness, usability, and accessibility testing and how they intersect within contemporary software development practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207