MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043195611 · doi:10.1145/1111360.1111367

Online help system design based on the situated action theory

2005· article· en· W2043195611 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 institutionsPolytechnique MontréalHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSituatedComputer scienceAction (physics)Human–computer interactionMultimediaWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nowadays, different forms of assistance are available in interactive computer-based systems. However, current online help systems, which correspond to the main components of online assistance, often are unsuccessful in providing support to users. The help that is offered is not well-suited to the problem the users encounter and to the particular needs they have. This paper reports on a new approach to online help system design based on the situated action theory. The approach has been implemented in a system called AIDE. The system has been evaluated with 15 subjects having to do programming tasks in C++, and compared to the online help available in the programming environment they were using and on the Web. The main results show that the assistance provided by AIDE was three times as effective as the two other forms of assistance to help in defining the problem, and twice as effective to help in resolving it. Results also show that with the AIDE system, students had much less recourse to human assistance when trying to complete their tasks.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207