Investigating the Post-Training Persistence of Expert Interaction Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expert interaction techniques enable users to greatly improve their performance; however, to realize these advantages, the user must first acquire the skill necessary to use a technique, then choose to use it over competing novice techniques. This article investigates several factors that may influence whether use of an expert technique persists when the context of use changes. Two studies examine the effect of changing performance requirements, and find that a high performance requirement imposed in a training context can effectively push users to adopt an expert technique, and that use of the technique is maintained when the requirement is subsequently reduced or removed. In a final study, performance requirement, high-level task, and environment of use are changed—participants played a training game to learn the menu for a drawing application, which they then used to complete a series of drawings over the following week. Participants exhibited a somewhat surprising “all-or-nothing” effect, using the expert technique nearly exclusively or not at all, and maintaining this behavior over a range of qualitatively different tasks. This suggests that switching to an expert technique involves a global change by the user, rather than an incremental change as suggested by previous work.
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 | 0.003 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".