MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033070571 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2014.6900974

Evaluation of an online shopping system under Preferences and Constraints

2014· article· en· W2033070571 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
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersSaudi Arabian Cultural Bureau
KeywordsComputer scienceRecommender systemPreference elicitationFocus (optics)PreferenceHuman–computer interactionOnline learningWorld Wide WebMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Designing interactive systems with graphic user interfaces is an important step in the development of online devices and websites. Online shopping systems and recommender applications have improved in the last decade and they are now widely used all over the world. However, it is important to understand online shoppers needs and preferences and to take them into account. In this regard, several online shopping systems rely on customer preference elicitation while others suggest products based on other customers recommendations. The focus of this paper is the interaction design of a system for Managing Preferences and Constraints (MPC) and Preferences Learning (PL). An evaluation method is utilized to obtain user feedback on how effective the system is and how easy it is to use, compared to other systems. The Volere requirements specification template was used with the six step framework to guide the evaluation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.154 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207