Usability of Interactive Computers in Exhibitions: Designing Knowledgeable Information for Visitors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates three types of content presentation (video documentary, computerized dictionary, and games) within interactive computer use at the Quebec Museum of Civilization. The visitors' viewpoint is particularly relevant for interface designing outcomes, since they argued that terminals require specific content display for disseminating information in the museum. We have identified five factors: 1) effortless knowledge; 2) sorted navigational paths; 3) exhaustiveness of topics; 4) combined audio and video media as first means; and 5) the quiz as a primary source of presentation. As first insight, terminals in exhibitions are perceived as multipurpose tools giving direct access to a wider selection of content, although it was shown that computer literate individuals have experienced problems to gain information, because of the content presentation and ergonomics. In addition, the commands provided did not properly assist visitors. Exhibit interface designers should build a “generic model interface” that best corresponds to the know-how of casual users, in order to avoid an arbitrary perusal of contents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it