MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076891891 · doi:10.1145/1125451.1125537

International usability evaluation SIG

2006· article· en· W2076891891 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 institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityBrainstormingUsability engineeringProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceAppealWeb usabilityWork (physics)Pluralistic walkthroughKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionEngineering ethicsEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applications, interfaces, and devices are increasingly customized to appeal to users with vastly different needs, desires, and values. In the past, products were built on the basis of technical proficiency, education, and age; now, product designers are embracing culture.How can human factors professionals support this work? This SIG will examine issues and strategies to be considered when evaluating product interfaces in two or more countries or cultures.A panel of practitioners will review some of the problems they faced in selecting and customizing methods for international usability design. SIG participants will then be invited to brainstorm and contribute their own "war stories" and experiences.It is expected that this SIG will generate 1) a range of case studies and 2) a reference list of people working in different countries and cultures who can help one another do international usability evaluation.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207