MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409046160 · doi:10.70637/5jg47318

L’écriture abrégée dans la prise de notes d’étudiant·e·s postsecondaires au début du 21<sup>e</sup> siècle : comparaison d’échantillons de notes manuscrites et dactylographiées

2025· article· en· W4409046160 on OpenAlexaff
Brigitte Leahy

Bibliographic record

VenueActes des Journées de linguistique · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In an academic context, abbreviations allow students to compensate for the difference between talking speed and writing speed (handwritten or typed) while taking notes. The difference between talking speed and writing speed (handwritten or typed) suggests that handwritten notetaking may require more abbreviation strategies to compensate for its slower speed. Objectives: This study aims to compare the use of abbreviated writing in typed and handwritten notes, and to analyze the frequency of different types of abbreviations in these two notetaking modes. The main hypothesis is based on the idea that handwritten notes have a higher rate of abbreviations than typed notes because of the greater time constraint. Method: The corpus is composed of twenty-two samples of post-secondary lecture notes in French, of which eleven are handwritten and eleven are typed. Four types of abbreviations were analyzed: logograms, siglas/acronyms, aphereses/apocopes, and syncopations. Welch’s t-tests were used with and without outliers to determine the significance in differences in abbreviation frequency according to the notetaking mode. Results: Statistical tests indicate a significant difference between both notetaking modes for total abbreviation frequency (p=0.043, d=0.97 with outliers, d=1.15 without outliers). Excluding outliers reduces the mean deviation of abbreviations but reinforces the significance of the difference. T‑tests show that aphereses/apocopes are used significantly more frequently in handwritten notes (p=0.019, d=1.25), while the respective frequencies of syncopations and logograms approach significance (p=0.056 and p=0.061). Conclusions: Handwritten notes show a higher proportion of abbreviations than typed notes, probably due to a more marked time constraint. The results also confirm strong inter-individual variability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActes des Journées de linguistiqueSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207