An Investigation of Metrics for the In Situ Detection of Software Expertise
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Task-based analysis is a common and effective way to measure expertise levels of software users. However, such assessments typically require in-person laboratory studies and inherently require knowledge of the user's task. Today, there is no accepted method for assessing a user's expertise levels outside of a lab, during a user's own home or work environment activities. In this article, we explore the feasibility of software applications automatically inferring a user's expertise levels, based on the user's in situ usage patterns. We outline the potential usage metrics that may be indicative of expertise levels and then perform a study, where we capture such metrics, by installing logging software in the participants' own workplace environments. We then invite those participants into a laboratory study and perform a more traditional task-based assessment of expertise. Our analysis of the study examines if metrics captured in situ, without any task knowledge, can be indicative of user expertise levels. The results show the existence of significant correlations between metrics calculated from in situ usage logs, and task-based user expertise assessments from our laboratory study. We discuss the implications of the results and how future software applications may be able to measure and leverage knowledge of the expertise of its users.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it