Bibliographic record
Abstract
As computing becomes ubiquitous and intelligent, it is possible for systems to adapt their behavior based on information sensed from the situational context. However, determining the context space has been taken for granted in most ubiquitous applications, and so that context-adaptive systems often miss the situational factors that are most relevant to users. The mismatch between a system's computational model and users' mental model of the context may frustrate and disorient users. This thesis describes the CCM (cognitive context model)-based approach for eliciting individual cognitive views of a context-aware task and selecting an appropriate context space for context-aware computing. It captures the situational and cognitive context for each task, using a structural architecture in which individual participants use a context view to describe their situational perspective of the task. Clustering and optimization techniques are applied to analyze and integrate context views in CCM. Developers can use the optimization output to identify an appropriate context space, specify context-aware adaptation policies and resolve run-time policy conflicts. This approach simplifies the task of context elicitation, emphasizes individual variance in context-aware activity, and helps avoid user requirements misunderstanding.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".