Cognitive modeling of age‐related differences in information search behavior
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 study, we evaluated the ability of computational cognitive models of web‐navigation like CoLiDeS and CoLiDeS+ to model i) user interactions with search engines and ii) individual differences in search behavior due to variations in cognitive factors such as aging. CoLiDeS and CoLiDeS+ were extended to predict user clicks on search engine result pages. Their performance was evaluated using actual behavioral data from an experiment in which 2 types of information search tasks (simple vs. difficult), were presented to younger and older participants. The results showed that the model predictions matched significantly better with the actual user behavior on difficult tasks compared to simple tasks and with younger participants compared to older participants, especially for difficult tasks. Also, the matches were significantly better with CoLiDeS+ compared to CoLiDeS, especially for difficult tasks. We conclude that the advanced capabilities of CoLiDeS+, such as incorporating contextual information and implementing backtracking strategies enable it to predict user behavior significantly better than CoLiDeS, especially on difficult tasks. The usefulness of these modeling outcomes for the design of support systems for older adults is discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| 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