A new input device: comparison to three commercially available mouses
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
This study was conducted to simultaneously compare the postural demands and performance of a new human-centred computer input device to three devices currently on the market. It was hypothesized that the new device would perform as well as the commercial devices while requiring less postural strain. A total of 24 experienced computer users performed a series of modified Steering and Fitts' Law Tests while their postural behaviour was captured using an opto-electric system. Analysis of the postural data revealed strong similarities between the new device and the commercially available devices, including some similarities that are not suggested in the literature. Analysis of the performance data reveals no significant difference between the new device and most commercial devices and suggests further examination of the difference between familiarity and mastery. This study has shown that it is possible to use the new device in a relaxed posture and yet achieve the same accuracy as commercial devices at no more postural risk than when the traditional mouse is used at a customized, ergonomic workstation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
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