MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090740586 · doi:10.2197/ipsjjip.19.231

Defining and Investigating Device Comfort

2011· article· en· W2090740586 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

VenueJournal of Information Processing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityCarleton UniversityCommunications Research Centre Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Human–computer interactionMobile deviceWork (physics)State (computer science)Context awarenessWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Device Comfort is a concept that uses an enhanced notion of trust to allow a personal (likely mobile) device to better reason about the state of interactions and actions between it, its owner, and the environment. This includes allowing a better understanding of how to manage information in fine-grained context as well as addressing the personal security of the user. To do this, it forms a unique relationship with the user, focusing on the device's judgment of user in context. This paper introduces and defines Device Comfort, including an examination of what makes up the comfort of a device in terms of trust and other considerations, and discusses the uses of such an approach. It also presents some ongoing developmental work in the concept, and an initial formal model of Device Comfort, its makeup and behaviour.

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 score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

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 communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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