MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W107212972 · doi:10.1177/0145482x1210600603

Instruction in Specialized Braille Codes, Abacus, and Tactile Graphics at Universities in the United States and Canada

2012· article· en· W107212972 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Penny Rosenblum, Derrick W. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Visual Impairment & Blindness · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrailleAbacus (architecture)GraphicsComputer scienceMathematics educationPsychologyMultimediaComputer graphics (images)Visual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction This study gathered data on methods and materials that are used to teach the Nemeth braille code, computer braille, foreign-language braille, and music braille in 26 university programs in the United States and Canada that prepare teachers of students with visual impairments. Information about instruction in the abacus and the preparation of tactile graphics was also gathered. Methods A faculty representative from each university completed a 39-question online demographic survey during fall 2011. Frequency counts for each item were tabulated, and comments were reviewed and categorized. Results All 26 university programs provided instruction in the Nemeth braille code. Most also provided introductory information on foreign-language braille, computer braille, and music braille. There was a high rate of consistency across the programs in what constituted a braille error. The university programs required students to prepare tactile graphics and learn computation on the abacus. The delivery of courses through a hybrid model was most common. Discussion University programs are providing instruction in the Nemeth braille code, though there is variability in the topics that are covered, the books that are used, and the assignments that are required. Most university programs are also exposing their preservice students to specialized braille codes and are teaching them to produce tactile graphics and to perform computations on the abacus. Future studies are needed to look at the quality of instruction and, if the amount of instruction in the different topics is sufficient, to prepare future teachers of students with visual impairments adequately. Implications for practitioners Data gathered from this study will assist university programs to evaluate the content of their courses on the topics that were studied. Adjustment in the content of courses may result, which may subsequently affect the skill set of practitioners as they complete university preparation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.277 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Visual Impairment & BlindnessSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207