Predictors of Web Navigation Performance in a Life Span Sample of Adults
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
The influence of age, subject matter knowledge, working memory, reading abilities, spatial abilities, and processing speed on Web navigation was assessed in a sample of 41 participants between the ages of 19 and 83 years. Each participant navigated a stand-alone tourism Web site to find answers to 12 questions. Performance was measured using time per trial, number of pages per trial, and number of revisited pages per trial. Age did not influence the number of total pages or repeat pages visited, which were predicted by domain knowledge, working memory, and processing speed. Age was associated with slower times per trial, and the effect remained significant after controlling for working memory, processing speed, and spatial abilities. Only with the addition of subject matter knowledge and World Wide Web experience was the age effect eliminated. Actual or potential applications of this research include redesigning Web sites to minimize memory demands and enhance visual segmentation. The data also suggest that age differences in Web navigation can be offset partially by taking advantage of older adults' prior experiences in the domain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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