MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312465695 · doi:10.3138/cart-2021-0005

Design and Construction of a Colourblind-Friendly Surabaya City Angkot Route Map Prototype

2022· article· en· W4312465695 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arzakhy Indhira Pramesti, Noorhadi Rahardjo

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)PerceptionRoad mapComputer scienceAffect (linguistics)Colour VisionSoftwareComputer visionArtificial intelligenceGeographyCartographyPsychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Angkot is the most often found public transportation in Surabaya City. However, there is no angkot routes map, and the officially published route information is textual, thus hard to get the transit information quickly. Meanwhile, people with colour vision impairment have a different perception of colour compared to people with normal vision. It can affect them in making decisions when reading a map. The purpose of this study is to design a colourblind-friendly Surabaya City angkot route map prototype and to conduct a cartographic evaluation of the map by considering the colour vision impairment factor. The map was created using ArcGIS and CorelDRAW then checked by using several software packages to ensure that the colours are colourblind-friendly then tested on people with normal vision and people with colour vision impairment. Fifteen out of 15 respondents with normal vision and 11 out of 11 respondents with colour vision impairment could distinguish the colours of the route. All respondents mentioned that symbols and some texts were too small. It shows that the colours on the map can accommodate both groups, but they have difficulty reading the route map because the size of the symbols and the text is too small.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyFrench-language works237,207