MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749333575 · doi:10.1177/0264619617711731

Current use of contracted and uncontracted French braille in Quebec

2017· article· en· W2749333575 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Visual Impairment · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation CentreMinistry of Education, Recreation and Sports
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsBrailleReading (process)Test (biology)PsychologyPerceptionCode (set theory)Computer scienceLinguisticsSet (abstract data type)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the French braille code, becoming an efficient contracted braille user requires a considerable investment in time and effort. Students must learn 1217 abbreviations to allow time- and space-saving, but practitioners are questioning whether this investment is worthwhile. The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency of contracted braille use by adults and their perceptions about the importance of this code. A total of 23 Quebec braille users (aged 18–40 years) completed a telephone interview with quantitative questions about the frequency of their braille use, and their use of technologies as well as qualitative items regarding their perceptions of braille now and in the future, 12 of whom completed a brief braille reading test.In all, 85% of participants used uncontracted braille for reading, 59% used contracted braille, and 95% used text-to-speech. Contracted braille was used mostly for tasks that require continuous reading (e.g. novels). All except one recognized the need to learn uncontracted braille and 78% considered contracted braille useful. In all, 11 participants indicated that they “can read faster” with contracted braille, a finding that was not replicated by our reading test, whereby reading speeds were not statistically significantly different between the two conditions . The portrait that emerges from the current use of contracted French braille in Quebec indicates that it is not often used in the life of blind individuals. However, the faith of our participants in the relevance of the contracted code is still very strong. This may be explained by the fact that braille is part of their identity. The potential increase in reading speed with contracted braille may not justify the time, effort, and cognitive resources required to learn/teach this code in French. The educational challenge remains to find the proper balance between the uses of French braille versus other technologies such as text-to-speech.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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