MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2025· article· W4417132205 on OpenAlexaff
Matheus de Morais Leça, Ronnie de Souza Santos

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.254
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.480
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2540.480
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207