Importance of Interface Agent Characteristics from End-User Perspective
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
This article reports on an empirical investigation of user perceptions of the importance of several characteristics of interface agents. Interface agents are software entities that are incorporated into various computer applications, including electronic mail systems. As evidenced by the growing body of empirical studies and the increasing number of interface agent-based applications on the software market, there is a strong need for the development of this technology. According to a meta-review of agent-related literature by Dehn and van Mulken (2000), there are several characteristics of interface agents that require special attention from agent developers. However, prior to this study, the importance of these characteristics from the end-user perspective remained unclear. In order to identify the significance of these characteristics, a group of actual users of an e-mail interface agent was surveyed. The results indicate that information accuracy and the degree of the usefulness of an agent are the most salient factors, followed by user comfortability with an agent, the extent of user enjoyment, and visual attractiveness of an agent. The implications of the findings for both theory and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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