MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020021684 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2010.376

The Effects of Perceived Visual Aesthetics on Process Satisfaction in GSS Use

2010· article· en· W2020021684 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceAestheticsHuman–computer interactionPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although group support systems (GSS) can potentially have tremendous impacts in helping to solve the challenges faced by organizations and societies today, research to date has primarily focused on direct out-comes, with less research focusing on factors contributing to use and continuing use of GSS. Integrating hedonic elements into the human computer interface of GSS is one way to potentially enhance users' satisfaction with the meeting process, which in turn can influence usage intentions. Hence, this study explores the effects of perceived visual aesthetics on satisfaction with the meeting process using a free simulation study with twenty ad-hoc teams performing an idea generation and evaluation task. The results show a significant role of perceived visual aesthetics in predicting satisfaction with the meeting process.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicColor perception and designFrench-language works237,207