MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Creating a Culture of Usability

2015· article· en· W15632191 on OpenAlexaff
Krista Godfrey

Bibliographic record

VenueWeave Journal of Library User Experience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPluralistic walkthroughComputer scienceUsability engineeringWeb usabilityHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper was refereed by Weave's peer reviewers. While usability testing is primarily applied to websites, it can and should be applied to many aspects of the library. Standing usability teams are an ideal means of improving usability across the library. As usability is applied to more library projects and usability skills develop, the library moves towards a culture of usability. This paper explores the creation of web usability teams as a means to develop a culture of usability and examines the steps taken by Memorial University Libraries to move in this direction.

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)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.120
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.120
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.020
Scholarly communication0.0320.021
Open science0.0030.028
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeave Journal of Library User ExperienceSame topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207