MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2192411834 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v29i1.9485

Constructing Models of User and Task Characteristics from Eye Gaze Data for User-Adaptive Information Highlighting

2015· article· en· W2192411834 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

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationGazeHuman–computer interactionClassifier (UML)Task (project management)Machine learningUser interfaceInterface (matter)Eye trackingArtificial intelligenceData visualizationInformation visualization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A user-adaptive information visualization system capable of learning models of users and the visualization tasks they perform could provide interventions optimized for helping specific users in specific task contexts. In this paper, we investigate the accuracy of predicting visualization tasks, user performance on tasks, and user traits from gaze data. We show that predictions made with a logistic regression model are significantly better than a baseline classifier, with particularly strong results for predicting task type and user performance. Furthermore, we compare classifiers built with interface-independent and interface-dependent features, and show that the interface-independent features are comparable or superior to interface-dependent ones. Finally, we discuss how the accuracy of predictive models is affected if they are trained with data from trials that had highlighting interventions added to the visualization.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0020.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.154 · 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