MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024353257 · doi:10.1109/ainaw.2007.211

Interface Adaptation Based on User Expectation

2007· article· en· W2024353257 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoyan Peng, Daniel Silver

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUser modelingUsabilityAdaptation (eye)User interfaceHuman–computer interactionUser interface designControl (management)Filter (signal processing)Interface (matter)User experience designArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A theoretical model of the relationship between user expectations and the changing state of a User Adapted Interface is presented. The usability of an intelligent email client that learns to filter spam emails is tested under three variants of adaptation: no user modeling, user modeling with fixed (optimal) spam cut-offs, and user modeling with user adjustable spam cut-offs. The results supported our hypothesis that user control over adaptation is preferred over no control because the user can maintain the system's interaction state within their region of expectation. The study suggests that this remains true even when performance of the system (accuracy of spam filtering) degrades because of errors in user control (adjustment of spam cut-offs).

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.142 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207