Making Use of Scenarios for Achieving Effective Use in Community Computing Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of effective use is gaining currency as a way of thinking about usability in community informatics. Broadly defined, effective use is the opportunity and capacity of a community group to leverage information communications technologies (ICTs) in order to achieve their goals. Although effective use is a worthy goal, a process for achieving effective use is not clearly defined. This paper combines the concept of scenarios from human-computer interaction (HCI) and participatory design (PD) in order to identify a design process to enhance participation and technological decision making in community information systems design projects. Our process for achieving effective use focuses first on the efficacy of scenarios as a tool to encourage and support participatory design, and second as an anchoring and adjustment heuristic. This study concludes with future research on effective use in community informatics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".