MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050583339 · doi:10.1145/1543137.1543169

Modeling learning effects in mobile texting

2008· article· en· W2050583339 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 institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSession (web analytics)Human–computer interactionPlug-inKey (lock)Subject-matter expertDomain (mathematical analysis)Mobile phoneMultimediaRecallKeypadProcess (computing)Expert systemArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

No work on mobile text messaging so far has taken into account the effect of learning on the change in visual exploration behavior as users progress from non-expert to expert level. We discuss within the domain of multi-tap texting on mobile phone and address the process of searching versus selecting a letter on the keypad interface. We develop a simulation model that forecasts the probability of letter location recall by non-expert users and thereby models learning, as the user acquires expertise in recalling, with practice, session after session. We then plugin this probability within a model of visual strategy that combines the effect of different ways visual exploration: non-expert users search for a letter while expert users select a letter. The observed non-expert non-motor time preceding a key press (for a letter) correlates extremely well with the simulation results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207