Enhancing Reliability through Screening and Segmentation: An Online Video Subjective Quality of Experience Case Study
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
In this paper we examine the reliability of subjective rating judgments along a single dimension, focusing on estimates of technical quality produced by integrity impairments and failures (non-accessibility, and non-retainability) associated with viewing video. There is often considerable variability, both within and between individuals, in subjective rating tasks. In the research reported here we consider different approaches to screening out unreliable participants. We review available alternatives, including a method developed by the ITU, a method based on screening outliers, a method based on strength of correlations with an assumed “natural” ordering of impairments, and a clustering technique that makes no assumptions about the data. We report on an experiment that assesses subjective quality of experience associated with impairments and failures of online video. We then assess the reliability of the results using a correlation method and a clustering method, both of which give similar results. Since the clustering method utilized here makes fewer assumptions about the data, it may be a useful supplement to existing techniques for assessing reliability of participants when making subjective evaluations of the technical quality of videos.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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