MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799221226 · doi:10.1145/3170427.3188576

Block Talks

2018· article· en· W2799221226 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentenceBlock (permutation group theory)Computer scienceFocus (optics)Reading (process)LiteracyHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMultimediaLinguisticsPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Block Talks toolkit combines the educational potential of tangible computing and augmented reality (AR) technologies to help children learn English sentence construction. Although examples of tangible AR reading systems for children currently exist, few focus specifically on learning sentence structure. Block Talks was developed using ordinary teaching supplies including letter tiles and blocks that can be manipulated to form words and sentences. A companion app allows children to scan these sentences to receive audio and AR feedback. Block Talks takes advantage of colour cues to draw children's attention to sentence structure patterns. This paper outlines existing tangible and AR systems for literacy learning, details the Block Talks design rationale, and concludes with a discussion of the advantages of using a combined tangible and AR approach for teaching sentence construction.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207