MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031285578 · doi:10.1145/1806923.1806925

SAK

2010· article· en· W2031285578 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 Computer-Human Interaction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Key (lock)Computer scienceCharacter (mathematics)Interval (graph theory)Feature (linguistics)SoftwareMathematicsComputer securityOperating systemLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design and evaluation of a scanning ambiguous keyboard (SAK) is presented. SAK combines the most demanding requirement of a scanning keyboard—input using one key or switch—with the most appealing feature of an ambiguous keyboard—one key press per letter. The optimal design requires just 1.713 scan steps per character for English text entry. In a provisional evaluation, 12 able-bodied participants each entered 5 blocks of text with the scanning interval decreasing from 1100 ms initially to 700 ms at the end. The average text entry rate in the 5 th block was 5.11 wpm with 99% accuracy. One participant performed an additional five blocks of trials and reached an average speed of 9.28 wpm on the 10 th block. Afterwards, the usefulness of the approach for persons with severe physical disabilities was shown in a case study with a software implementation of the idea explicitly adapted for that target community.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.275 · 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