MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008914037 · doi:10.1145/1367497.1367502

Keysurf

2008· article· en· W2008914037 on OpenAlexaff
Leo Spalteholz, Kin Fun Li, Nigel J. Livingston, Foad Hamidi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Accessibility for Disabilities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUser interfaceWeb navigationWeb pageInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionProcess (computing)Key (lock)World Wide WebSelection (genetic algorithm)Web applicationCharacter (mathematics)MultimediaArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many users with a physical or motor disability, using a computer mouse or other pointing device to navigate the web is cumbersome or impossible due to problems with pointing accuracy. At the same time, web accessibility using a keyboard in major browsers is rudimentary, requiring many key presses to select links or other elements. We introduce KeySurf, a character controlled web navigation system which addresses this situation by presenting an interface which allows a user to activate any web page element with only two or three keystrokes. Through an implementation of a user-centric incremental search algorithm, elements are matched according to user expectation as characters are entered into the interface. We show how our interface can be integrated with a speech recognition input, as well as with specialized on-screen keyboards for people with disabilities. Using the user's browsing history, we improve the efficiency of the selection process and find potentially interesting page links for the user within the current web page. We present the results from a pilot study evaluating the performance of various components of our system.

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)0.007
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2730.148

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesFrench-language works237,207