Multimodal field data entry:performance and usability issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile technologies have yet to be widely adopted by the Architectural, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry despite being one of the major growth areas in computing in recent years. This lack of uptake in the AEC industry is likely due, in large part, to the combination of small screen size and inappropriate interaction demands of current mobile technologies. This paper discusses the scope for multimodal interaction design with a specific focus on speech-based interaction to enhance the suitability of mobile technology use within the AEC industry by broadening the field data input capabilities of such technologies. To investigate the appropriateness of using multimodal technology for field data collection in the AEC industry, we have developed a prototype Multimodal Field Data Entry (MFDE) application. This application, which allows concrete testing technicians to record quality control data in the field, has been designed to support two different modalities of data input speech-based data entry and stylus-based data entry. To compare the effectiveness or usability of, and user preference for, the different input options, we have designed a comprehensive lab-based evaluation of the application. To appropriately reflect the anticipated context of use within the study design, careful consideration had to be given to the key elements of a construction site that would potentially influence a test technician's ability to use the input techniques. These considerations and the resultant evaluation design are discussed in detail in this paper.
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 | 0.022 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".