MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Energetic Alpha: Co-Designing a Tool that Encourages Three- to Six-Year-Olds to Develop Handwriting Skills

2018· article· en· W2891719682 on OpenAlexaff
Aoife Mooney, Marianne Martens, Gretchen Caldwell Rinnert

Bibliographic record

VenueDialectic · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandwritingAlpha (finance)PsychologyMathematics educationComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bedrock of our communication remains rooted in our alphabet-the ultimate confluence of concept, sound, and image in a systematic code. This paper documents the research and prototype design of an iPad app -Energetic Alpha -in the service of teaching three to sixyearold children to write. Examining the decisionmaking processes that guided the development of this interdisci plinary project highlights opportunities and challenges for designing interactive and flexible tech nology for a young audience. The authors discuss the approaches and decisionmaking strategies and methods that shaped their research and design decisionmaking processes as they developed this app.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.310 · 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.

Study designObservational
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 venueDialecticSame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207