MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506792509 · doi:10.1145/2930674.2930692

The Code of Many Colours

2016· article· en· W2506792509 on OpenAlexaff
Emily S. Cramer, Alissa N. Antle, Min Fan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicReading and Literacy Development
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpellingComputer scienceCoding (social sciences)Variety (cybernetics)Context (archaeology)DyslexiaReading (process)Field (mathematics)SoftwareNatural language processingCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dyslexia is a severe impairment in reading and spelling that affects 10% of children in English-speaking countries. One area of difficulty is learning spelling rules that require attention to other letters within a word (i.e., context): for example, why grapple requires two ps while staple requires one. Poor visual attention contributes to children's difficulties. Computer-based programs that use multisensory cues have helped children learn simple letter-sound relations, but not contextual spelling rules. In this paper we present three theoretically derived principles that can be used to design dynamic colour codes for a variety of contextual spelling rules in software systems. We discuss how we used our principles to design the colour scheme for a single contextual spelling rule in our tangible software system, called PhonoBlocks. We evaluate its effectiveness in a field study with nine dyslexic children. On the basis of our findings, we conclude that our approach to using dynamic colour may help children with dyslexia to learn contextual spelling rules, but that individual factors impact the colours' effectiveness. We conclude by suggesting ways our dynamic colour-coding principles can be implemented in other systems taking into consideration individual factors that also impact their effectiveness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReading and Literacy DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207