MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793993343 · doi:10.4018/ijsvr.2018010106

Adult Dyslexia and Word Puzzles

2018· article· en· W2793993343 on OpenAlexaff
Priscilla Beatriz Burley, Natasha Cuneo, Emanuel Ellis, L. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDyslexiaWord (group theory)AnagramsSet (abstract data type)PsychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyAlphabetReading (process)CognitionLinguisticsNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes how dyslexia is a real disease that is linked to specific semiotic systems, such as the alphabet and word orthographical rules. As such, it is likely to be a result of an asymmetry between developmental cognition and particular semiotic structure. If this is so, then an appropriate intervention approach that is based on this hypothesis might involve the use of word puzzles that play on the alphabetic and semantic structure of words. This article presents the findings of a pilot project in which selected adult dyslexics were asked to participate in a word puzzle study, consisting of word searches, anagrams, and word squares, whereby they would be asked to solve a set of puzzles under the supervision of a researcher. The latter documented and annotated the actual behaviors of the participants as they solved the puzzles. The overall result of the project is a promising one in that it suggests that the use of such “enigmatological” strategies may have a definite role to play in dyslexia intervention, although much more research is needed in this area.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.359
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Semiotics and Visual RhetoricSame topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207