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
Recently, there has been renewed interest in techniques for facilitating the selection of user interface widgets or other on-screen targets with a pointing device. We report research into using target expansion for facilitating selection. Widgets that expand or grow in response to the user's focus of attention allow for a reduced initial size which can help optimize screen space use and may be easier to select than targets that do not expand. However, selection performance could plausibly suffer from a decreased initial widget size. We describe an experiment in which users select a single, isolated target button that expands just before it is selected. Our results show that users benefit from target expansion even if the target only begins expanding after 90% of the distance to the target has been travelled. Furthermore, our results suggest that, for sufficiently large ID values, users are able to take approximately full advantage of the expanded target size. For interfaces with multiple expanding widgets, however, subtle problems arise due to the collisions or overlap that may occur between adjacent expanding widgets. We give a detailed examination of the issues involved in both untiled and tiled multiple expanding targets and present various design strategies for improving their performance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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