Windows of perception: a review of the literature concerning uncontracted and contracted literary braille
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This literature review took place during 2004, and shows that the braille debate over Grade 1 and Grade 2 has been ongoing for more than 70 years. Given the span of time and a remit that covered the English-speaking world, a chronological approach was taken, focusing on the two main strands of policy and empirical research, from the early 20th century to the present day. Most of the material originates from the USA, Canada and the UK. Commissioned by the Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB), the review focuses on a single aspect of the code: the use of uncontracted braille, also referred to as Grade 1, and the use of contracted braille, which is commonly referred to as Grade 2. The review is concerned with English literary braille and does not address issues surrounding specialist mathematical, foreign language or scientific codes. In the papers reviewed, the important roles of specialist committees and international organizations are acknowledged, as well as the significant contributions made by individuals. The full report is lodged within the RNIB Research Library.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".