Cyberpsychology: A Human-Interaction Perspective Based on Cognitive Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues for the relevance of cognitive modeling and cognitive architectures to cyberpsychology. From a human-computer interaction point of view, cognitive modeling can have benefits both for theory and model building, and for the design and evaluation of sociotechnical systems usability. Cognitive modeling research applied to human-computer interaction has two complimentary objectives: (1) to develop theories and computational models of human interactive behavior with information and collaborative technologies, and (2) to use the computational models as building blocks for the design, implementation, and evaluation of interactive technologies. From the perspective of building theories and models, cognitive modeling offers the possibility to anchor cyberpsychology theories and models into cognitive architectures. From the perspective of the design and evaluation of socio-technical systems, cognitive models can provide the basis for simulated users, which can play an important role in usability testing. As an example of application of cognitive modeling to technology design, the paper presents a simulation of interactive behavior with five different adaptive menu algorithms: random, fixed, stacked, frequency based, and activation based. Results of the simulation indicate that fixed menu positions seem to offer the best support for classification like tasks such as filing e-mails. This research is part of the Human-Computer Interaction, and the Broadband Visual Communication research programs at the National Research Council of Canada, in collaboration with the Carleton Cognitive Modeling Lab at Carleton University.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".