MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1815871248

ISO 9241-9 evaluation of video game controllers

2009· article· en· W1815871248 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Natapov, Steven J. Castellucci, I. Scott MacKenzie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceController (irrigation)Task (project management)Video gameThroughputEntertainmentMultimediaPoint (geometry)Real-time computingSimulationOperating systemEngineeringMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen participants completed a study comparing video game controllers for point-select tasks. We used a Fitts ’ law task, as per ISO 9241-9, using the Nintendo Wii Remote for infrared pointing, the Nintendo Classic Controller for analogue stick pointing, and a standard mouse as a baseline condition. The mouse had the highest throughput at 3.78 bps. Both game controllers performed poorly by comparison. The Wii Remote throughput was 31.5% lower, at 2.59 bps, and the Classic Controller 60.8 % lower at 1.48 bps. Comparing just the video game controllers, the Wii Remote presents a 75 % increase in throughput over the Classic Controller. Error rates for the mouse, Classic Controller, and the Wii Remote were 3.53%, 6.58%, and 10.2%, respectively. Fourteen of 15 participants expressed a preference for the Wii Remote over the Classic Controller for pointing tasks in a home entertainment environment.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations95
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207