MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905917334 · doi:10.1109/icfhr-2018.2018.00086

Multimodal Acquisition and Analysis of Children Handwriting for the Study of the Efficiency of Their Handwriting Movements: The @MaGma Challenge

2018· preprint· en· W2905917334 on OpenAlexaff
Remie Celine, Jimmy Nagau, Jean Vaillant, Alin Dorville, Réjean Plamondon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHandwritingContext (archaeology)Computer sciencePersonalizationSet (abstract data type)Handwriting recognitionArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebFeature extraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Handwriting is a fundamental skill that each pupil should master for successfully completing his instructions. However, for a certain number of children, after a successful phase of handwriting learning an unexplained rough deterioration of their efficiency on paper is observed during the phase of customization of their handwriting. In this context, our goal is to make a comprehensive study of the evolution and the difficulties of children handwriting learning according to handwriting teaching approaches involved in school. To achieve such a challenge, it is necessary to collect in a secured way and to analyze a large amount of various contextualized online and offline handwritten data produced in real scholar situations by numerous pupils from kindergarten up to middle school. This is the purpose of the ongoing @MaGma project that was defined with the Academic direction of the Guadeloupian Region. In this paper, we specify the problems handled in @Magma and depict the general principles which will have to govern the collaborative infrastructure of acquisition and treatment of children's writing, based on 2 frameworks: Copilotr@ce and Dekattras. Next, we report the preliminary results of the comparative sigma-lognormal and dynamic analysis of a set of children scribbles acquired thanks to this infrastructure. We conclude by developing how these first results obtained in a real scholar acquisition context confirm the experimental results previously obtained in more clinical contexts, pointing out the fact that the Personalized Digital Bodyguard concept and vision is realizable.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207