MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003785947 · doi:10.1145/2047196.2047257

The 1line keyboard

2011· article· en· W2003785947 on OpenAlexaff
Frank Chun Yat Li, Richard Guy, Koji Yatani, Khai N. Truong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeystroke loggingComputer scienceGestureVirtual keyboardText entrySpace (punctuation)Computer graphics (images)Human–computer interactionSpeech recognitionComputer hardwareArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current soft QWERTY keyboards often consume a large portion of the screen space on portable touchscreens. This space consumption can diminish the overall user experi-ence on these devices. In this paper, we present the 1Line keyboard, a soft QWERTY keyboard that is 140 pixels tall (in landscape mode) and 40% of the height of the native iPad QWERTY keyboard. Our keyboard condenses the three rows of keys in the normal QWERTY layout into a single line with eight keys. The sizing of the eight keys is based on users' mental layout of a QWERTY keyboard on an iPad. The system disambiguates the word the user types based on the sequence of keys pressed. The user can use flick gestures to perform backspace and enter, and tap on the bezel below the keyboard to input a space. Through an evaluation, we show that participants are able to quickly learn how to use the 1Line keyboard and type at a rate of over 30 WPM after just five 20-minute typing sessions. Using a keystroke level model, we predict the peak expert text entry rate with the 1Line keyboard to be 66--68 WPM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.018

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations105
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207