MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Dongba Pictographs and Its Application to Pictogram Design

2013· article· en· W1666591889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhen Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSimulation and Modeling Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPictogramReadabilityFormative assessmentComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Test (biology)PsychologyLinguisticsMathematics educationProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I present my research developing new pictogram design methods based on the formative methods of Dongba pictographs, for the purpose of developing understandable, systematic and interesting pictograms. I studied and analyzed the formative methods of Dongba pictographs and extracted a set of new pictogram design methods. To test the feasibility of the proposed pictogram design methods, I designed some pictograms for Traditional Chinese Medicine through each method and administered a questionnaire to test the readability of these pictograms.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicSimulation and Modeling ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207