Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine key factors that affect a user's behavior with search results, we conducted a controlled eye-tracking study of users completing search tasks using both desktop and mobile devices. We focus our investigation on users' behavior from their query to the first action they take with the search engine results page (SERP): either a click on a search result or a reformulation of their query. We found that a user deciding to reformulate a query rather than click on a result is best understood as being caused by the user's examination pattern not including a relevant search result. If a user sees a relevant result, they are very likely to click it. Of note, users do not look at all search results and their examination may be influenced by other factors. The key factors we found to explain a user's examination pattern are: the rank of search results, the user type, and the query quality. While existing research has identified rank and user types as important factors affecting examination patterns, to our knowledge, query quality is a new discovery. We found that user queries can be understood as either of weak or strong quality. Weak queries are those that the user may believe are more likely to fail compared to a strong query, and as a result, we find that users modify their examination patterns to view fewer documents when they issue a weak query, i.e. they give up sooner.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.030 |
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".