Characterizing the usability of interactive applications through query log analysis
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
People routinely rely on Internet search engines to support their use of interactive systems: they issue queries to learn how to accomplish tasks, troubleshoot problems, and otherwise educate themselves on products. Given this common behavior, we argue that search query logs can usefully augment traditional usability methods by revealing the primary tasks and needs of a product's user population. We term this use of search query logs CUTS - characterizing usability through search. In this paper, we introduce CUTS and describe an automated process for harvesting, ordering, labeling, filtering, and grouping search queries related to a given product. Importantly, this data set can be assembled in minutes, is timely, has a high degree of ecological validity, and is arguably less prone to self-selection bias than data gathered via traditional usability methods. We demonstrate the utility of this approach by applying it to a number of popular software and hardware systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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