MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989951233 · doi:10.1177/0733464805278378

Use of Computer Input Devices by Older Adults

2005· article· en· W1989951233 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Gerontology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBrock UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyAudiologyCognitionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionApplied psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sample of 85 seniors was given experience (10 trials) playing two computer tasks using four input devices (touch screen, enlarged mouse [EZ Ball], mouse, and touch pad). Performance measures assessed both accuracy and time to complete components of the game for these devices. As well, participants completed a survey where they evaluated each of the devices. Seniors also completed a series of measures assessing visual memory, visual perception, motor coordination, and motor dexterity. Overall, previous experience with computers had a significant impact on the type of device that yielded the highest accuracy and speed performance, with different devices yielding better performance for novices versus experienced computer users. Regression analyses indicated that the mouse was the most demanding device in terms of the cognitive and motor-demand measures. Discussion centers on the relative benefits and perceptions regarding these devices among senior populations.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.261 · 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