MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971475583 · doi:10.1145/765891.765974

Card, English, and Burr (1978)

2003· article· en· W1971475583 on OpenAlexaff
I. Scott MacKenzie, R. William Soukoreff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFitts's lawThroughputReciprocalComputer scienceArithmeticMathematicsOperating systemLinguisticsArtMovement (music)Philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We revisit the Fitts? law model published 25 years ago by Card, English, and Burr. Their research was important because it was the first comparative evaluation of the mouse, and also the first use of Fitts? law in HCI. For the mouse, they reported MT = 1.03 + 0.096 ID, with throughput reported as the slope reciprocal: TP = 1 / 0.96 = 10.3 bps. We re-analyse their data in view of ISO9241-9, the new standard for evaluating pointing devices. The reanalysis yields a throughput of 2.65 bps, or 4.32 bps including a nominal adjustment for the time for the hand to adjust its grip on the mouse. These values are closer to recently published ISO-conforming values for the mouse.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.015
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.016

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations71
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207