MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312433172 · doi:10.1177/154193120304701509

Improving Human Scaling Reliability

2003· article· en· W2312433172 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 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicColor perception and design
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceScale (ratio)Field (mathematics)Domain (mathematical analysis)MathematicsPhysicsPower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to measure the subjective experience of system users, the field of human factors makes extensive use of classical scaling methods. In this paper, the applicability of a new scaling method for human factors research is demonstrated. Constrained scaling, a technique for training individuals to translate mental magnitudes to numeric scales, is introduced. Constrained scaling has been found to reduce significantly the variability in scale use between individuals. Prior research has focused extensively on psychophysical constrained scaling. As an example of how constrained scaling can also improve the quality of psychometric measures available to human factors researchers, new research is presented that compares classical scaling with constrained scaling for rating the visual appeal of Web pages. Constrained scaling is found to increase scaling reliability in this subjective domain.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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