Introduction to the Special Issue: The Tricky Landscape of Developing Rating Scales in HCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The official imprimatur for including usability questionnaires within HCI came with the genesis of the ISO 9241 Part 11 definition of usability, which included ‘satisfaction’ as an aspect of usability—a definition that sat perhaps rather uneasily with the objective, Taylorist (Taylor, 1911) definitions of ‘efficiency’ and ‘effectiveness’ (published as ISO, 1998, but existing in circulated official drafts for some years before): Satisfaction measures the extent to which users are free from discomfort and their attitudes towards the use of the product… [it] can be specified and measured by subjective rating on scales… That usability, or even user satisfaction could be considered to be a multi-dimensional subjective construct, had been suggested by Kirakowski and Corbett (1988) and brought out clearly (Kirakowski and Corbett, 1993).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.037 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".