MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625364330 · doi:10.1080/0020739x.2017.1339132

Advanced mathematics communication beyond modality of sight

2017· article· en· W2625364330 on OpenAlex
Mina Sedaghatjou

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSightEmbodied cognitionModality (human–computer interaction)Visually impairedVisualizationBlindnessComputer scienceMathematics educationHuman–computer interactionCognitive sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study illustrates how mathematical communication and learning are inherently multimodal and embodied; hence, sight-disabled students are also able to conceptualize visuospatial information and mathematical concepts through tactile and auditory activities. Adapting a perceptuomotor integration approach, the study shows that the lack of access to visual fields in an advanced mathematics course does not obstruct a blind student's ability to visualize, but transforms it. The goal of this study is not to compare the visually impaired student with non-visually impaired students to address the ‘differences’ in understanding; instead, I discuss the challenges that a blind student, named Anthony, has encountered and the ways that we tackled those problems. I also demonstrate how the proper and precisely crafted tactile materials empowered Anthony to learn mathematical functions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.359 · 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