MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963730591 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2014.121

Investigating Features in Support of Web Tools for Information Gathering

2014· article· en· W1963730591 on OpenAlexaff
Anwar Alhenshiri, Carolyn Watters, Michael Shepherd, Jack Duffy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTask (project management)World Wide WebInformation retrievalTrack (disk drive)Human–computer interactionWeb applicationTask analysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study that investigated three features to improve how users perform information gathering tasks on the web. These features were based on recommendations that were developed in a previous work. The results of the previous study indicated that tools supporting information gathering could be improved by: 1) keeping track of references to information as it is gathered for the task 2) keeping the task information integrated between sessions, and 3) providing integrated search, browsing, and editing capabilities. The results of the study described in this paper using a prototype indicate that these features improve performance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

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 communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207