MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981230523 · doi:10.1109/cts.2013.6567275

Evaluate an immunization record model by remote user interaction through Internet

2013· article· en· W1981230523 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Sedghi, Abdul Roudsari, Alex Kuo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructiveComputer scienceUsabilityThink aloud protocolThe InternetProcess (computing)Session (web analytics)Human–computer interactionMultimediaWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment of health information system (HIS) during development can help to identify and resolve system weakness. Prototype helps to depict system behavior and some of the features of the eventual program to the end-user in early development stages. Think aloud and constructive interactions are two common usability engineering methods that suggested for system evaluation. In this paper, we proposed to use constructive interaction method to evaluate an immunization record model, and we used Skype to test the model over distance with the help of health professionals. Constructive interaction was effective in this study because Skype allowed face-to-face communication, and tasks were distributed among people in each session. Skype helped users in separate location work collaboratively on evaluation process.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersona Design and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207