MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066422697 · doi:10.4018/jmhci.2009070105

Mobile HCI

2009· article· en· W2066422697 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

VenueInternational Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionMobile appsMobile deviceMobile interactionData collectionMultimediaData scienceWorld Wide WebSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this position article we argue that it is time for the mobile HCI community to think beyond the traditional screen-keyboard-mouse paradigm and explore the many possibilities that mobility, mobile platforms, and people on the move offer. We present a collection of ideas aiming to encourage HCI researchers to explore how up-and-coming mobile technologies can inspire new interaction models, alternative I/O methods, and data collection methods. The range of possible applications designed to make life easier for specified user populations is limited, we maintain, only by our imagination to understand novel problem spaces, to mix, match and expand on existing methods as well as to invent, test, and validate new methods. We present several case studies in an attempt to demonstrate such possibilities for future mobile HCI.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.316 · 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