MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411856823 · doi:10.1177/17470218251357441

Stroke features in the Chinese character recognition

2025· article· en· W4411856823 on OpenAlexaff
Feifan Luo, Ye Zhang, Liang Wu, Caroline Blais, Marie-Pier Plouffe Demers, Daniel Fiset, Dan Sun, Bing Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHandwritten Text Recognition Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)HierarchyStroke (engine)Chinese charactersPerceptionFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceLine (geometry)Artificial intelligencePsychologyPattern recognition (psychology)Natural language processingSpeech recognitionLinguisticsNeuroscienceMathematicsEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While line vertices, terminations, and midsegments are critical for Roman letter identification, the diagnostic features of Chinese character strokes remain unclear. This study examines how local stroke-level features and global line-relation mechanisms contribute to Chinese character recognition. In Experiment 1, we applied the Bubbles classification image technique to native Chinese readers to identify diagnostic stroke features. Results revealed four key features: horizontal hooks, dots, vertical turnings, and raises. These features, while analogous to terminations in alphabetic systems, reflect unique dynamics of Chinese stroke production, marking stroke origins and terminations. Experiment 2 employed a delayed-segment paradigm to assess functional significance of these features. Greater degradation of vertices and midsegments significantly prolonged reaction times, and removal of stroke-based terminations (e.g., hooks) impaired recognition accuracy. Together, these findings support a two-tiered hierarchy in Chinese character recognition: stroke-specific terminals enable fine-grained feature discrimination, while line-relation features support global structural integration. The results affirm script-general principles (midsegments and vertices as perceptual anchors) and highlight language-specific adaptations, where stroke terminations function as dynamic positional cues.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.341
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of Experimental PsychologySame topicHandwritten Text Recognition TechniquesFrench-language works237,207