MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009846045 · doi:10.1145/2399193.2399195

How Older Adults Learn to Use Mobile Devices

2012· article· en· W2009846045 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

VenueACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractive kioskMobile devicePreferencePsychologyGerontologyAging in placeOlder peopleComputer scienceMobile technologyMultimediaApplied psychologyInternet privacyMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mobile computing devices, such as smart phones, offer benefits that may be especially valuable to older adults (age 65+). Yet, older adults have been shown to have difficulty learning to use these devices. In the research presented in this article, we sought to better understand how older adults learn to use mobile devices, their preferences and barriers, in order to find new ways to support them in their learning process. We conducted two complementary studies: a survey study with 131 respondents from three age groups (20--49, 50--64, 65+) and an in-depth field study with 6 older adults aged 50+. The results showed, among other things, that the preference for trial-and-error decreases with age, and while over half of older respondents and participants preferred using the instruction manual, many reported difficulties using it. We discuss implications for design and illustrate these implications with an example help system, Help Kiosk, designed to support older adults’ learning to use mobile devices.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · 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