MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974693402 · doi:10.5539/hes.v9n4p44

Undergraduate Student Education Programs Regarding Braille Literacy: A Transnational Comparative Study

2019· article· en· W2974693402 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vassilios Argyropoulos, Andrea Hathazi, Magda Nikolaraizi

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrailleFluencyMathematics educationPsychologyLiteracyReading (process)Inclusion (mineral)Special educationVisual impairmentPedagogyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing braille literacy skills represents one of the major goals of the education process for students with vision impairment. Fluency and accuracy in reading and writing facilitate access to information, development of knowledge, active participation, functionality, and independence in social contexts. One of the essential factors that can influence the success in the learning process of the braille code consists of the competences of teachers of students with vision impairment who teach braille. The purpose of this study was to investigate the reflections of 95 undergraduate special education students on their training programs regarding braille in their role as future special education teachers. Data were obtained through questionnaires which were administered in two departments of special education in two European universities. The results reported upon undergraduate students’ reflections on their study in braille and confidence in teaching braille to students who are blind. The findings highlighted the need for further training into the braille code in conjunction with its literary and scientific notation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207