MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038583143 · doi:10.1145/1047671.1047677

The state of user-centered design practice

2005· article· en· W2038583143 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

VenueCommunications of the ACM · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)University of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceUser-centered designTask (project management)Multidisciplinary approachProduct (mathematics)Process managementUser requirements documentUser experience designKnowledge managementKey (lock)Product designHuman–computer interactionEngineering managementSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User-Centered Design (UCD) is a multidisciplinary design approach based on the active involvement of users to improve the understanding of user and task requirements, and the iteration of design and evaluation. It is widely considered the key to product usefulness and usability---an effective approach to overcoming the limitations of traditional system-centered design. Much has been written in the research literature about UCD. As further proof of internationally endorsed best practice, UCD processes are also defined in ISO documents, including ISO 13407 and the associated technical report, ISO TR 18529. Increasingly, UCD has become part of the cultural vernacular of the executives and managers who drive technology development in companies of all sizes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
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 science0.0450.013
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.234 · 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