MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196592687 · doi:10.25124/idealog.v6i1.3684

DESIGN TABLE BOARD GAME FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION IN THE BLIND, CASE STUDY YPAB SLB TEGALSARI SURABAYA

2021· article· en· W3196592687 on OpenAlexaff
Choirul Anam, Muria Ilham Priharto

Bibliographic record

VenueIdealog Ide dan Dialog Desain Indonesia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Education
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)PsychologyMathematics educationData collectionComputer scienceSociologyLibrary scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to overcome the bad social-emotional problems of children as well as to invite blind children to participate in playing and not forget to prioritize a special design aesthetic for blind children. The research results found are the results of primary data collection from observations of daily activities of the subject as well as interviews with the subject, teacher, and subject's parents and secondary data obtained from literacy results from related research sources. Research subjects were taken from students of SLB YPAB TEGALSARI SURABAYA. The research method used is to examine primary data and secondary data so that in finding these products it is found from the combined results of the analysis of the behavior patterns of blind children with design analysis, namely material / material, shape, color, and system. In the final result, a traditional game innovation is found that is inspired by a chess board that is often played in schools and modified into a snake and ladder board game for the blind. Keywords: Design, Board game, Snakes and Ladders, Blind

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIdealog Ide dan Dialog Desain IndonesiaSame topicChild Development and EducationFrench-language works237,207