MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138120939 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2011.6030560

Inquiry on usability of two software process modeling systems using ISO/IEC 9241

2011· article· en· W2138120939 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityUsability engineeringComputer scienceUsability goalsUsability inspectionSystem usability scaleHeuristic evaluationSoftware engineeringCognitive walkthroughContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Component-based usability testingSoftwareHuman–computer interactionSystems engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most common limitations of software is poor usability. Usability refers to the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction with which users achieve their particular goals in a particular context. This paper reports an experiment which evaluates the usability factors between two software process modeling systems, EPF-Composer and DSL4SPM. Based on the standard ISO/IEC 9241, a method has been designed for both subjective and objective evaluation of systems' usability. The method allows gathering the metrics that make up the usability scale. Our experiment, involving 14 teams, provides insights on how to enhance the design of software products. The results shows that a combination of objective and subjective evaluations provide a more complete view of usability.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.186 · 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