MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766477191 · doi:10.1145/3132525.3132528

BrailleSketch

2017· article· en· W2766477191 on OpenAlexafffund
Mingzhe Li, Mingming Fan, Khai N. Truong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBrailleTouchscreenComputer scienceSession (web analytics)GestureSpeech recognitionWord (group theory)Code (set theory)Audio feedbackText entryMultimediaArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionProgramming languageWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present BrailleSketch, a gesture-based text input method on touchscreen smartphones for people with visual impairments. To input a letter with BrailleSketch, a user simply sketches a gesture that passes through all dots in the corresponding Braille code for that letter. BrailleSketch allows users to place their fingers anywhere on the screen to begin a gesture and draw the Braille code in many ways. To encourage users to type faster, BrailleSketch does not provide immediate letter-level audio feedback but instead provides word-level audio feedback. It uses an auto-correction algorithm to correct typing errors. Our evaluation of the method with ten participants with visual impairments who each completed five typing sessions shows that BrailleSketch supports a text entry speed of 14.53 word per min (wpm) with 10.6% error. Moreover, our data suggest that the speed had not begun to plateau yet by the last typing session and can continue to improve. Our evaluation also demonstrates the positive effect of the reduced audio feedback and the auto-correction algorithm.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.017

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207