The DOI matches its Crossref record; 218 of the 291 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 34 are not checked yet; 6 of the 318 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Cripping AI: Reimagining AI Through Lived Disability Experiences
Open accessAbstract
Drawing on crip theory, this paper proposes cripping AI as a guiding framework to center lived disability experiences in AI research and development. Moving beyond calls to make AI “accessible” to people with disabilities, cripping AI seeks to: (1) reveal and dismantle ableist assumptions embedded in how AI is imagined, designed, and evaluated; (2) center disabled ways of knowing (i.e., cripistemologies); (3) respect disabled labor in co-creating accessible practices. We demonstrate how to apply our framework with three cases: deafness and sign language AI, blindness and visual assistive AI, and stuttering and speech AI. We end by outlining three directions for future work, including cripping AI with diverse human bodyminds, across the entire AI pipeline and ecosystem, and in collaboration with other justice-oriented AI efforts.
Verified 2026-10-25 · 34 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper proposes "cripping AI" as a guiding framework that moves beyond making AI merely accessible, instead centering lived disability experiences in how AI is imagined, designed, and evaluated. It develops three tenets—exposing disability politics, honoring cripistemologies, and respecting crip labor—and illustrates them through three case studies on sign language AI, visual assistive AI, and stuttering/speech AI.
Key findings
- The framework rests on three interconnected tenets: (1) *expose disability politics*—interrogate how AI practices construct certain bodyminds as "disabled" rather than treating disabled/non-disabled as fixed; (2) *honor cripistemologies*—center knowledge produced through disabled bodyminds and communities rather than treating able-bodied perception as ground truth; (3) *respect crip labor*—recognize accessibility as ongoing, friction-filled, collective work in which disabled people play a key role.
- The paper identifies three ableist assumptions recurring in accessibility-oriented AI: disability viewed as a medical deficit, able-bodied people positioned as the authoritative source of knowledge, and disabled people treated as passive objects of protection.
- Cited evidence includes: WHO figures that around 1.3 billion people worldwide experience significant disability (~16% of the global population); a survey of 10k+ deaf signers in China finding fewer than 10% can fully understand sign language interpretation on TV broadcasting; and a finding that PWS annotators disagreed with labels in more than 25% of clips in a highly cited English stuttered speech dataset.
- Three cross-case insights: toward lived-experience-preserving pipelines (preserving diversity, ambiguity, and subjectivity instead of a single ground truth), lived experience as expertise, and design with lived experience in the loop.
Methods
- Conceptual/theoretical paper: it draws on crip theory and critical disability studies to propose a framework, offered explicitly as "a generative framework rather than a prescriptive method."
- Three case studies drawn from the authors' own prior and ongoing research: deafness and sign language AI, blindness and visual assistive AI, and stuttering and speech AI (the latter conducted at AImpower.org with people who stutter).
- No new empirical data collection is reported for this paper; the cases synthesize prior work (e.g., sign language content creation, everyday uncertainty in BLV GenAI use, stuttered speech dataset annotation and benchmarking) to illustrate applying the three tenets.
Limitations
- Stated by the authors: they acknowledge "the risk of abstracting disabled experiences in our theorization and when we describe disabilities as a group"; that ableism remains a pervasive reality and not all disabled individuals want to be called "crip"; and that claiming a crip identity and access to disability justice can itself reflect a form of privilege, so the framework "must remain situated and context-sensitive in practice."
- Stated scope limitation: "Given the scope limitation, we did not cover some crucial aspects such as model training, architecture, APIs, and governance."
- Evident from the positionality statement: none of the authors identify as deaf or blind, none are signers, and only the first author has basic knowledge of sign language—so the deafness and blindness cases are not authored from lived experience of those disabilities (the last author has lived experience of stuttering).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
149 Sources not found · 35 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given · 6 Partly supported · 3 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Recent clinical work increasingly advocates for transdiagnostic approaches that shift the focus from diagnostic categories to individuals' needs and experiences [7, 9].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] [7] Ian A Apperly, Robert Lee, Sanne W van der Kleij, and Rory T Devine. 2024. A transdiagnostic approach to neurodiversity in a representative population sample: The N+ 4 model. JCPP advances 4, 2 (2024), e12219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12219 - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (“Neurodevelopmental conditions as complex phenotypes”; page unavailable) says that features outside diagnostic categories can be more important to people's experiences and needs, and describes arguments for approaches that better capture this complexity. It does not establish that clinical work increasingly advocates such a shift; it describes a research approach and says some authors favor combining new approaches with, rather than replacing, diagnostic categories. (LLM, conf=0.79)
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“many diagnositic frameworks lack consensus or explanatory validity [7, 9, 14, 196, 280].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] [7] Ian A Apperly, Robert Lee, Sanne W van der Kleij, and Rory T Devine. 2024. A transdiagnostic approach to neurodiversity in a representative population sample: The N+ 4 model. JCPP advances 4, 2 (2024), e12219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12219 - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (‘Neurodevelopmental conditions as complex phenotypes’; page unavailable) says traditional diagnostic categories have prompted questions about their validity and may not capture important complexity. The Discussion (‘Assumptions, limitations, and further work’; page unavailable) describes contested boundaries between neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions. These passages support concerns about some diagnostic categories, but do not establish that many diagnostic frameworks lack explanatory validity as a matter of fact. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [14]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“in mixed-ability teams, where members must deal with inaccessible tools and constantly negotiate between differing and sometimes conflicting needs [5, 97, 101, 150, 248].”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] [5] Rahaf Alharbi, John Tang, and Karl Henderson. 2023. Accessibility Barriers, Conflicts, and Repairs: Understanding the Experience of Professionals with Disabilities in Hybrid Meetings. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 605, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548. 3581541 - source
Section 4.1 describes barriers involving captioning and assistive devices in hybrid meetings. Section 4.2 says conflicting access needs often arise in mixed-ability communities, and section 5.1.1 describes ongoing access negotiations between professionals with disabilities and their colleagues. Together, these passages support the citing sentence in the paper’s hybrid-meeting context. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites [97]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [101]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“PWS-led practices therefore allowed us to capture more versatile, naturalistic, and value-aligned stuttered speech data than datasets curated through expert-led paradigms [140, 144].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [140]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [144]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that PWS speakers' expectations for annotations vary across communication contexts.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For instance, some may care less about the accuracy of identifying specific stuttering events and more about whether auto captioning fosters awareness of stuttering.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Aligned with this theory, we found that PWS annotators disagreed with labels in more than 25% of the clips in a highly cited English stuttered speech dataset [238, 246].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [238]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, PWS annotators often drew on accessory and kinematic signals such as 'breathing, tone of speech, and speed of talking' to inform their annotations [246].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, disability continues to be systematically marginalized in AI development.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [79]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [256]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [266]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, relatively few efforts have been made to systematically interrogate the power dynamics underlying these approaches”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 60
- Probably not a substantial claim. 37
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“these standards have their limitations and have been repeatedly challenged by clinical professionals.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [7] [7] Ian A Apperly, Robert Lee, Sanne W van der Kleij, and Rory T Devine. 2024. A transdiagnostic approach to neurodiversity in a representative population sample: The N+ 4 model. JCPP advances 4, 2 (2024), e12219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcv2.12219 - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (‘Neurodevelopmental conditions as complex phenotypes’; page unavailable) says categorical diagnoses have limitations and that some have questioned their validity. The Introduction (‘Transdiagnostic approaches to psychiatry and neurodevelopmental conditions’; page unavailable) also says researchers have questioned psychiatric diagnostic categories. Neither passage establishes that clinical professionals, specifically, have repeatedly challenged these standards. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“in video conferencing, BLV members might prioritize visual privacy, while deaf members might prefer to have visual cues; both need to navigate error-prone captions [5, 150].”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [5] [5] Rahaf Alharbi, John Tang, and Karl Henderson. 2023. Accessibility Barriers, Conflicts, and Repairs: Understanding the Experience of Professionals with Disabilities in Hybrid Meetings. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 605, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3544548. 3581541 - sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 4.1.1 and 5.2.1 describe deaf and hard-of-hearing professionals needing visual cues to identify speakers and lipread. Section 4.1.2 reports inaccurate captions in hybrid meetings. The passages do not establish that blind or low-vision members prioritize visual privacy or that they, too, need to navigate caption errors. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites [150]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Research shows that both general-purpose and blind-focused AI systems often miss information crucial to BLV users (e.g., nutrition labels on products [66]) or assume sighted knowledge when generating visual descriptions [4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites [4] [4] Rahaf Alharbi, Angela D Cheong, Jaylin Herskovitz, Robin N. Brewer, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2025. 'Trying to Piece It Together': Exploring Accessible Error Detection in Emerging Privacy Techniques With Blind People. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '25) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 18, 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3663547.3746376 - source
The [4] citation is attached to the claim that visual descriptions assume sighted knowledge, not the nutrition-label example attributed to [66]. Section 4.1.4 says assessment descriptors can assume knowledge of visual properties that people born blind may not have; Section 5.1.2 identifies those descriptors as a type of visual description. Our copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“While non-PWS crowdworkers often follow rigid rules or focus on observable acoustic cues, PWS annotators can capture the bodily sensations that arise during and around moments of stuttering [246].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This PWS-centered approach not only helped foster an intimate and supportive environment for PWS participants, but also turned data collection into a rewarding community activity for personal growth [143].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [143]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Growing evidence shows that AI models exhibit both performance degradation and bias in disability-related tasks [79, 256, 266].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [79]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [256]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [266]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there remains a lack of clear guidance on how to make AI truly supportive of disability.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Able-bodied people are often treated as the default reference for task goals or as the source of ground-truth labels.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This line of work has revealed pervasive ableist assumptions embedded in technologies, and made efforts to transform design to center disability [101, 105, 108].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [101]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [105]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [108]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“how to truly center lived disability experiences in AI development remains exploratory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these technologies might still reinforce the ableist hierarchy and treat PWDs as passive objects of protection.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“these systems often rely on visual descriptions provided by sighted people for training [80, 81], while overlooking BLV people's sense-making strategies [66, 244].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without careful consideration, the resulting AI models and systems may not only fall short in benefiting disabled communities but also reinforce ableism.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“rejects essentialist views of disability, arguing that disabled people are 'disabled' through interactions with their surrounding environments”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [117]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [122]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [145]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“diagnostic frameworks such as DSM are often deemed as the authoritative standard for understanding mental or neurodevelopmental disabilities [41, 167, 234].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [41]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [167]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [234]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Without critical examination and careful design, these systems may reinforce flawed medical models and perpetuate ableist worldviews.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“many navigation systems are designed for obstacle avoidance and define the optimal path as the widest open space. However, objects on roads often serve as important informational cues for BLV people [267], making the widest open space a worse environment for them.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [267]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“critics argue that LLMs, like ChatGPT, prioritize ableist norms such as efficiency [105] or fluency in speech and writing [165].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [105]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [165]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Not matched
In the paper
“BLV people must navigate incomplete and subjective information from both AI models and humans in their everyday information seeking, often developing their unique sense-making strategies [244].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [244]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“These traditional machine learning tasks often assume a static, single ground truth, for example, that each image has a single 'accurate' description [80], each face expresses a specific type of emotion [46], or that each English sentence has a direct parallel in sign language [55].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [55]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“scholars in critical disability studies challenge assumptions about an 'ideal' human standard and position disability as an intrinsic part of humanity [117, 122, 162].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [117]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [122]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [162]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the neurodiversity movement, which challenges traditional biological and psychiatric standards of autism, arguing that it should be recognized as a form of neural diversity [230].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [230]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“these metrics and evaluation tasks may not truly measure 'general' intelligence but instead privilege a limited set of social and cultural norms about what counts as intelligence and abilities”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [119]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [153]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [180]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Extensive evidence shows that creating accessibility is ongoing, friction-filled work in which disabled people actively participate [15, 19, 26, 202, 244], often resulting in additional labor [27, 228] and without an ideal solution [202, 244, 248].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [19]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“when a BLV person navigates a space, they do not rely on a single source of information, but actively gather environmental cues and shift in cognitive frameworks [212], such as triangulating between ego- (e.g., 'to my right') and allocentric (e.g., 'east of the park') spatial frameworks [68], interpreting tactile feedback from the ground [267], using a white cane to detect environmental features [”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [212]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [267]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“the pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is often guided by a narrowed conception of intelligence and often evaluated using standardized benchmarks or by comparison to 'human baselines' [30, 194].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [194]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although dominant narratives often frame AI as 'empowering' disabled people, these systems can also introduce new accessibility issues [2, 47, 103].”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [2] [2] Rudaiba Adnin and Maitraye Das. 2024. "I look at it as the king of knowledge": How Blind People Use and Understand Generative AI Tools. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (St. John's, NL, Canada) (ASSETS '24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 64, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/3663548.3675631 - source
- Not matchedcites [47]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [103]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a recent review found that sign language systems often rely on annotation formats that reduce signs to simple tokens and do not follow best practices in linguistics [56].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [56]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“back-up channels like human assistance are necessary for people to receive continuous care and to build trust in a service when AI systems are limited [171].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [171]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It typically encompasses techniques for sign language recognition, generation, and bidirectional translation with written or spoken language, often taking translation as the ultimate goal [24].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [24]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Under this traditional view, the evaluation of AI systems might focuses on output accuracy or task completion [39, 80, 81, 283], and disabled people are usually limited to providing data or testing the final system [50].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [39]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From a cultural perspective, sign language AI is therefore a core technology to serve deaf communities.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“BLV people's understanding of information often evolves in their interactions with human or tools. They constantly interpret and evaluate, not only AI outputs, but also the subjective nature of information (e.g., interpreting subjective questions like those about fashion, or the source of the information), while constantly dealing with inaccessible websites and artifacts [20, 244].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [244]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“overreliance on them risks shifting responsibility and labor onto disabled users themselves [243], and diverting attention from more fundamental interventions.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [243]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“These platforms connect BLV users with sighted volunteers to answer visual questions [80, 81], while later becoming a major source of training AI systems for BLV people.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although deafness has traditionally been viewed as a 'lack' of hearing, a cultural perspective views deaf people who use sign language as a linguistic and cultural minority [191].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [191]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Signing Exact English, represents English through letter-by-letter fingerspelling”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Historically, hearing-centered beliefs have assumed spoken language as the only legitimate form of language, dismissed sign languages as a poor substitute, and pressured deaf children to use lip-reading and speech [86].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [86]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“deaf communities have heated debates over what counts as a 'legitimate' sign language and how to sign 'deaf' enough.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“As sign language information is often lacking in public spaces [191, 245, 255], deaf people have cultivated vibrant sign language spaces, e.g., deaf clubs [93, 191] and online communities [245, 249].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [191]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [245]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [255]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Kusters et al. noted that if every regional and urban variety was given a distinct name, Indonesia alone would have over 500 named sign languages [131].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [131]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It was not until the 1960s that sign languages were recognized as fully developed languages, when William Stokoe provided formal linguistic evidence demonstrating that ASL has its own distinct structures and vocabularies [240].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [240]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the frequent language contact between sign language and written/spoken language systems then led to varieties such as Pidgin Signed English [89].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [89]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“As minority languages, sign languages often lack standardized forms and are shaped by complex histories and language ideologies [131, 179].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [131]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [179]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“they are often criticized as ableist [179] and might even impact deaf children's language development [220].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [179]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [220]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A survey of 10k+ deaf signers in China found that fewer than 10% can fully understand sign language interpretation on TV broadcasting, as hearing interpreters usually follow Chinese grammar when signing”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [146]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As he recalls, the interpreter was not professional and had strong personal opinions, but his descriptions were so direct and informative that Clark could interpret for himself what was happening in the room through the interpreter's perspective [113].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [113]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“There is rich evidence showing how deaf people co-construct and negotiate meaning with interpreters in communication, as well as with hearing or other deaf participants [51, 113, 164, 261].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [51]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [113]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [164]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [261]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Tang et al. describe how BLV people must navigate the inherent subjectivity in visual information from both AI systems and humans, a phenomenon they term 'everyday uncertainty' [244].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [244]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This pervasive subjectivity in visual perception questions the dominant paradigm that relies on sighted crowdworkers as the ground truth [80], especially considering that most sighted crowdworkers do not know what information BLV people need [229].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [229]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Visual assistive systems typically use images provided by BLV individuals or sourced from the Internet for training, while relying on sighted crowdworkers to generate corresponding visual descriptions.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As deaf scholar De Meulder noted, many deaf people have negotiated with low-quality interpretation services for their whole life, and they may see 'avatars' signing as another signing style they'll have to put up with and learn to 'understand'' [50].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [50]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“From the lens of labor, while emerging AI tools offer potential support, they also introduce new forms of labor, such as managing erroneous outputs and prompt engineering [244].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [244]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, comparatively little attention has been given to the underlying assumptions in these efforts.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As an example of recent efforts to incorporate BLV perspectives in model development, Garg et al. conducted a survey to identify BLV users' information needs regarding products and re-annotated visual accessibility datasets to reflect these needs [66].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [66]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similar to deafness, the definition and operationalization of blindness differ across legal, medical (e.g., visual acuity), and functional frameworks (e.g., what assistive technologies a person uses) [68].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [68]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These translanguaging practices not only challenge the idea of building translation machines for sign language, but also broaden the conventional scope of a named language to the whole semiotic space.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“By contrast, he critiqued the 'accurate' alt-texts he typically encountered as 'a replica, divorced entirely from the original' [113].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [113]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, these embodied forms of knowledge are often lacking in existing AI models and limit their abilities to represent blindness-related items and meet BLV people's needs.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“While varying in formats and use contexts, these systems share the goal to provide visual information to BLV people, for example, describing scenes [65], generating image captions [81], answering visual questions about images [80], or identifying objects [116].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [65]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For much of history, blindness has been defined in terms of a lack of sight, while vision has been positioned as the authoritative source of knowledge [216].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [216]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“John Lee Clark, a Deafblind activist, illustrated this paradox with a story of working with a 'biased' yet 'best' interpreter [113].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [113]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Although this assumption may work for some tasks (e.g., asking for a product brand when the product photo is clear and complete), it often fails in real-world situations that BLV users encounter, where the perceived utility of information varies according to the purpose of information seeking (curiosity vs. focused search), temporal constraints, and criticality (for healthcare vs. fun), etc. [244]”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [244]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Recent research and advocacy in stuttering, however, have increasingly affirm stuttering as a valid mode of communication [32], defined not by speech disfluencies but by the speaker's subjective experiences, such as spontaneity [43] and embodied sensations [254].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [43]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [254]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“They often cut off or misunderstood stuttered speech, further marginalizing PWS in every aspects of daily life including employment and social interactions [135, 144, 238, 277].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [135]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [144]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [238]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [277]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Speech AI systems are optimized for fluency and speed.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These frictions highlight accessibility as a collective work which needs a unified policy framework that accommodates accessibility with other values, such as privacy [243] and the interests of bystanders [3].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [243]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] [3] Taslima Akter, Tousif Ahmed, Apu Kapadia, and Manohar Swaminathan. 2022. Shared Privacy Concerns of the Visually Impaired and Sighted Bystanders with Camera-Based Assistive Technologies. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 15, 2, Article 11 (May 2022), 33 pages. doi:10.1145/3506857 - source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“For instance, much research has focused on improving BLV people's photo-taking skills [116, 173, 222, 252], as they often take 'low-quality' images that are considered hard for AI models to process, i.e., blurry, poorly framed, or missing key objects [80, 81].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [116]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [173]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [222]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [252]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [80]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [81]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These behaviors can blur the boundaries of stuttered and fluent speech, as a speaker can sound fluent by changing every word they block on and a speaker can appear stutter as they pause intentionally.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Stuttering Severity Instrument (SSI), one of the most popular clinical tools for measuring stuttering severity, requires speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to annotate the occurrence and a clear boundary of each stuttering event in stuttered speech samples [49].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [49]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Stuttering is a neuro-developmental condition characterized by involuntary disruptions in speech, such as sound repetitions, word repetitions, sound prolongations, and blocks [182].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [182]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As Christopher Constantino (PWS, licensed SLP) observes, ' Our pauses, hesitations, and silences carry semantic weight; they are meaningful and purposeful ' [42].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [42]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For many PWS, confronting their own stuttering can trigger intense emotional responses [274], imposing a significant emotional burden when they are asked to annotate or evaluate their own speech.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [274]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Collecting speech data in the form of unscripted conversations between PWS also grants the speakers full agency to engage in topics that are meaningful to them, fostering narrative sovereignty for a population whose voices are often silenced in society [140].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [140]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These forms of embodied knowledge are crucial for moving beyond medical and able-bodied perspectives, building systems that truly support disabled people.”
plaindirectn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“As an exploratory effort, our prior dataset work invited PWS community members or allies to take on interviewer roles and guide the data collection process [143].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [143]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, the underperformance of ASR models could create additional labor for PWS such as fixing inaccurate transcriptions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In contrast, mental health communities have cultivated Mad culture to promote patient-centered care and to frame fluctuations in emotions as part of their identity and natural human experiences [37, 151, 205].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [37]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [151]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [205]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“However, the high variability within stuttering [254] could lead to different types of model failures for different speakers: those who speak with more repetitions may see more hallucination in auto captioning [238], while those with more blocks may experience frequent cut-offs by voice assistants [135].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [254]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [238]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [135]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lived disability experiences are critical expertise for AI development.”
plaindirectn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These perspectives, however, have yet to be incorporated into AI development.”
plainn = 3- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, when we annotated stuttered speech datasets for ASR, we co-designed the annotation guidelines with PWS and invited PWS speakers to evaluate the quality of annotations on their own speech in concrete downstream applications [246].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [246]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The iceberg theory of stuttering suggests that [223], 'stuttering is like an iceberg, with only a small part above the waterline and a much bigger part below.'”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [223]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“These nuanced perspectives from PWS challenge the accuracy of existing stuttered speech annotations produced by non-PWS, and also call into question some common practices in speech model training and evaluation, such as trimming segments classified as 'non-speech' or 'silence' (e.g., [184, 287]), or using synthetic speech data to represent stuttering [130, 284].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [184]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [287]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [130]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [284]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Claiming a crip identity and access to disability justice can itself reflect a form of privilege [123, 160, 226] and simplifies the histories and powers behind the word [225, 226].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [123]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [160]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [226]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [225]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“ASL was further influenced by racial segregation and gendered norms, leading to variations like Black ASL [95] and gendered expressions (e.g., 'father' is typically signed higher on the face than 'mother') [257].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [95]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [257]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These tensions are likely to persist in the design of AI systems.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Additionally, we acknowledge that ableism remains a pervasive reality for disabled people [250], and that not all disabled individuals want to be called 'crip' [226].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [250]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, a cross-community approach is also essential because ableism not only affects disabled people but also sets narrow standards of 'ability' that reinforces ideologies that disadvantage women, queer people, racial minorities, people in the Global South, etc.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, ASL is colonialized, racialized, and gendered [91].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [91]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Deaf schools in the U.S. emerged from European settler colonial projects [91], which explains French Sign Language's influence over ASL.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [91]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Centering disabled people's lived experiences is necessary for AI to be truly supportive of disability.
“To truly center disability in AI development, this paper takes one step further from making AI accessible toward cripping AI as a guiding framework.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The three proposed tenets are a sufficient starting framework for systematically cripping AI.
“We propose three interconnected tenets as a starting point for systematically cripping AI”
The paper relies on this without support.
The authors' three case studies adequately demonstrate how to apply the cripping AI framework.
“We present three cases from our own research to exemplify how to put our framework in practice.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sign language technologies aim to fully convert sign languages into other languages.
“The richness of sign language practices also questions the goal of sign language technologies to fully convert them into other languages.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Speech AI systems are optimized for fluency and speed.
“Optimized for fluency and speed, speech AI systems including voice commands, speech-to-text tools, and automatic captioning often have great difficulties when interacting with PWS.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Visual assistive systems typically use images provided by BLV individuals or sourced from the Internet for training, while relying on sighted crowdworkers to generate corresponding visual descriptions.
“These systems typically use images provided by BLV individuals or sourced from the Internet for training, while relying on sighted crowdworkers to generate the corresponding visual descriptions.”
Citations
Cites
Translanguaging as a Practical Theory of Language
Wei, L. (2018) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/amx039 · Cited by 2,907 · cited 2×
“The concept describes how bi-or multi-lingual speakers weave all their linguistic and non-linguistic resources to construct meaning [263].”
Sign Language Structure: An Outline of the Visual Communication Systems of the American Deaf
Stokoe, W. C. (2004) · The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · doi:10.1093/deafed/eni001 · Cited by 1,425 · cited 1×
“It was not until the 1960s that sign languages were recognized as fully developed languages, when William Stokoe provided formal linguistic evidence demonstrating that ASL has its own distinct structures and vocabularies [240].”
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.922 · Cited by 1,424
Carrasco, M., Ling, S., & Read, S. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1194 · Cited by 1,126 · cited 1×
“Extensive evidence suggests that human vision is shaped by interconnected mechanisms of attention [34, 203], memory [177], professional training [73], language [253, 271], culture [158, 183, 221], social structures [175], etc. Tang et al. describe how BLV people must navigate the inherent…”
The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.004 · Cited by 1,081
Russian blues reveal effects of language on color discrimination
Winawer, J. A., Witthoft, N., Frank, M. C., Wu, L. Y., Wade, A. R., & Boroditsky, L. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0701644104 · Cited by 1,023 · cited 1×
“…suggests that human vision is shaped by interconnected mechanisms of attention [34, 203], memory [177], professional training [73], language [253, 271], culture [158, 183, 221], social structures [175], etc. Tang et al. describe how BLV people must navigate the inherent subjectivity in visual…”
Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence
Mohamed, S., Png, M.-T., & Isaac, W. (2020) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-020-00405-8 · Cited by 912 · cited 1×
“Cripping AI also requires collaborating with other justice-oriented AI efforts including those driven by decolo-nialism [169], feminism [264], queer theory [187], critical race theory [188], etc.”
Transdiagnostic approaches to mental health problems: Current status and future directions.
Dalgleish, T., Black, M., Johnston, D., & Bevan, A. (2020) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000482 · Cited by 883 · cited 1×
“• Moving from rigid diagnostic classifications (e.g., [38, 136, 167]) toward a more fluid understanding of individual experiences (e.g., adopting transdiagnostic approaches to neurodiversity or mental health that center people’s needs and experiences [9, 45]).”
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
(2023) · doi:10.1145/3544548 · Cited by 735
Schuller, B. W., Steidl, S., Batliner, A. M., Vinciarelli, A., Scherer, K. R., Ringeval, F., Chétouani, M., Weninger, F. J., Eyben, F., Marchi, E., et al. (2013) · Interspeech (USB) · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2013-56 · Cited by 732
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inclusive AI: Rethinking AI-based Multimodal Interaction for Diverse and Underrepresented Users
Barbareschi, G., Kosmyna, N., Matera, M., et al. (2026) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/3776574.3834740
AI Tools, Especially Chatbots and Disabled People: Views of Critical Disability Studies Students
Wolbring, G., Djebrouni, M., & Yanushkevich, S. N. (2026) · Societies · doi:10.3390/soc16100342
Metadata
- Authors
- Tang, X., Lin, T.-A., Li, J., & Wu, S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- University of Connecticut (US)
- AImpower.org, Mountain View, California, USA
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2026-06-25
- Pages
- 3508-3536
- OpenAlex
- W7160416972
- Semantic Scholar
- c897aa298cf511f77dce71dd8a594810c6efdaa2
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 288
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 19.68
- Type
- conference paper
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- NSF (National Science Foundation) (2427710)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Keywords
- crip theory, disability studies, ableism, cripistemology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-25, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-25 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
