MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159203809 · doi:10.1109/tic-sth.2009.5444533

Analysis of text entry performance metrics

2009· article· en· W2159203809 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
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsText entryComputer scienceData entryTask (project management)Mobile deviceWord error rateHuman–computer interactionInformation retrievalArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers have proposed many text entry systems to enable users to perform this frequent task as quickly and precise as possible. Unfortunately the reported data varies widely and it is difficult to extract meaningful average entry speeds and error rates from this body of work. In this article we collect data from well-designed and well-reported experiments for the most important text entry methods, including those for handheld devices. Our survey results show that thumb keyboard is the fastest text entry method after the standard QWERTY keyboard, and that Twiddler is fastest amongst non-QWERTY methods. Moreover, we survey how text entry errors were handled in these studies. Finally, we conducted a user study to detect which effect different error-handling methodologies have on text entry performance metrics. Our study results show that the way human errors are handled has indeed a significant effect on all frequently used error metrics.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Quick stats

Citations197
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207