MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015367725 · doi:10.1145/1138403.1138438

Ethics and usability testing in computer science education

2006· article· en· W2015367725 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 SIGCSE Bulletin · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityUsability engineeringComputer scienceInformation ethicsQuality (philosophy)Engineering ethicsComputer ethicsKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionEngineeringMeta-ethics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ethics and usability testing are increasingly important parts of a modern computer science education, given the changing profile of computer science employment and the increased focus on privacy. This paper introduces the concept of a participant pool, a means to recruit participants for research, which can be a valuable tool in teaching usability testing and ethics. It has a role in an overall emphasis on software quality and the importance of research. It can also help to increase the profile of this research and the desirability of a Computer Science degree to the larger population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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