MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005918404 · doi:10.3402/rlt.v1i1.9471

Recognition of animated icons by elementaryaged children

2011· article· en· W2005918404 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

VenueResearch in Learning Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePreferenceInterpretation (philosophy)Action (physics)Human–computer interactionAnimationMultimediaPsychologyVisual artsComputer graphics (images)ArtProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a study to investigate the recognizability of and preference for animated icons by elementary-aged aged children. Fourteen typical computer-related tasks (e.g., copy, move) were viewed by 60 school-children in two iconic formats: animated and static. The content of the icons and the computer process or action they mimicked were drawn from a previous study in which a similar group of children was asked to depict gesturally their interpretation of the 14 tasks. Results indicated that the animated version of the icons was more recognizable and that the children greatly preferred the animated icons over the static icons. Implications for the design of enhanced user-interfaces for children are noted.DOI:10.1080/0968776930010105

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.264 · 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