MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127644622 · doi:10.1147/sj.424.0517

Building ease of use into the IBM user experience

2003· article· en· W2127644622 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

VenueIBM Systems Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIBMUsabilityProcess (computing)Computer scienceUser experience designSoftware engineeringProcess managementEngineering managementWorld Wide WebEngineeringHuman–computer interactionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This issue of the IBM Systems Journal explores the topic of building ease of use into the IBM user experience with hardware, software, Web sites, and services. This paper provides an overview of the process and organizational transformation that IBM has gone through in improving the user experience with our offerings. IBM's process for building ease of use into the user experience is described and two versions of the process are introduced and contrasted. The IBM User-Centered Design (UCD) approach, which has been used for the last several years, is contrasted with the traditional approach to the development of offerings. A recent major enhanced version of the process, called User Engineering (UE), which is optimized for the IBM e-business on demand™ strategy, is contrasted with the existing UCD process. The key elements of our enablement, leadership, and guidance strategy for these processes are outlined, including mission, process integration, education and training, communication, collaboration, and tools and technology. An overview of the papers in this issue is also provided.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.242 · 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