MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345565043 · doi:10.1016/j.optom.2016.03.003

Toward developing a standardized Arabic continuous text reading chart

2016· article· en· W2345565043 on OpenAlexaff
Balsam Alabdulkader, Susan J. Leat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Optometry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsArabicReading (process)ChartMedicineOptometryPsychologyLinguisticsMathematicsStatisticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Near visual acuity is an essential measurement during an oculo-visual assessment. Short duration continuous text reading charts measure reading acuity and other aspects of reading performance. There is no standardized version of such chart in Arabic. The aim of this study is to create sentences of equal readability to use in the development of a standardized Arabic continuous text reading chart. Initially, 109 Arabic pairs of sentences were created for use in constructing a chart with similar layout to the Colenbrander chart. They were created to have the same grade level of difficulty and physical length. Fifty-three adults and sixteen children were recruited to validate the sentences. Reading speed in correct words per minute (CWPM) and standard length words per minute (SLWPM) was measured and errors were counted. Criteria based on reading speed and errors made in each sentence pair were used to exclude sentence pairs with more outlying characteristics, and to select the final group of sentence pairs. Forty-five sentence pairs were selected according to the elimination criteria. For adults, the average reading speed for the final sentences was 166 CWPM and 187 SLWPM and the average number of errors per sentence pair was 0.21. Childrens’ average reading speed for the final group of sentences was 61 CWPM and 72 SLWPM. Their average error rate was 1.71. The reliability analysis showed that the final 45 sentence pairs are highly comparable. They will be used in constructing an Arabic short duration continuous text reading chart. La agudeza visual de cerca es una medición esencial del examen visual. Las tablas de lectura de textos continuos de corta duración miden la agudeza visual y otros aspectos del rendimiento lector. No existe una versión estandarizada de dichas cartillas en árabe. El objetivo de este estudio es el de crear frases de igual legibilidad, para ser utilizadas en el desarrollo de una cartilla estandarizada de lectura de textos continuos en árabe. Inicialmente, se crearon 109 pares de frases en árabe para construir una cartilla con un diseño similar al de la tabla de Colenbrander. Fueron creadas para tener el mismo nivel de dificultad e igual longitud física. Se reunió a cincuenta y tres adultos y dieciséis niños para validar las frases. Se midieron la velocidad lectora en palabras correctas por minuto (CWPM) y las palabras de longitud estándar por minuto (SLWPM), contabilizándose los errores. Se utilizaron los criterios basados en la velocidad lectora y los errores en cada frase para excluir los pares de frases con más características periféricas, y seleccionar el grupo final de pares de frases. Se seleccionaron cuarenta y cinco pares de frases, de acuerdo con los criterios de eliminación. Para los adultos, la velocidad lectora media de las frases finales fue de 166 CWPM y 187 SLWPM, y el número medio de errores por par de frase fue de 0,21. La velocidad lectora media de los niños para el grupo final de frases fue de 61 CWPM y 72 SLWPM. Su índice medio de error fue de 1,71. El análisis de fiabilidad mostró que los 45 pares de frases finales son altamente comparables. Se utilizarán para construir una tabla de lectura de textos continuos de corta duración en árabe.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of OptometrySame topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207