MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118521008 · doi:10.1109/mprv.2005.76

Evaluating Early Prototypes in Context: Trade-offs, Challenges, and Successes

2005· article· en· W2118521008 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Pervasive Computing · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersDalhousie University
KeywordsImpartialityComputer scienceContext (archaeology)RealismWizardUbiquitous computingHuman–computer interactionData scienceWorld Wide WebEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to say that experience prototyping and Wizard of Oz prototyping, taken together, constitute a suitable alternative to true contextual evaluation for early prototypes, one gaining realism at the expense of impartiality, the other impartiality at the expense of realism. As our experiences show, however, each pervasive application design poses unique challenges that you must consider when applying these approaches. Regardless, it's often a good trade-off to sacrifice some measure of realism to evaluate early prototypes. Evaluation of early pervasive computing prototypes in context is a pragmatic exercise, but one that is nonetheless informed by general approaches that reflect and adapt to the challenges of pervasive application development.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.237 · 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