MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388895262 · doi:10.6033/tokkyou.22a023

Is Writing Correct and Well-Organized Characters Necessary for Academic Achievement? A Comparison of the Relationship Between Kanji Writing Scores and Academic Achievement on Two Scoring Criteria

2023· article· en· W4388895262 on OpenAlex
Yuko OGINO, Akihiro Kawasaki, Tomohito Okumura, Yutaka Matsuzaki

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Japanese Journal of Special Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCreative Drama in Education
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

本研究は小学1~6年生155名を対象に漢字書字課題を行い、正しく整っている/判読可能の2基準で採点し、学力および視覚情報処理能力との関係を検討した。結果、双方の採点基準で学力との相関を認めたが、整った文字は判読可能文字に比して相関係数が有意に高くはならなかった。また文字の正確性や綺麗に書くこと自体が学習となる下学年では整った文字と視知覚および視覚認知の相関が強く、相関は学年が上がると弱くなることから、整った文字を習得する過程では視知覚・認知機能の負荷が高く、上学年で整った文字を書くためには文字の詳細なイメージを思い浮かべる必要性から視覚性ワーキングメモリーへの負荷の高さが示唆された。よって学力を従属変数とした場合に正しく整った文字が書けることの蓋然性は確認されず、文字形態を整える指導に注力することは、発達障害をはじめとする認知機能に個人内差のある児童の学習到達度には好影響とはならない可能性が考えられた。

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.272 · 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