MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914064544 · doi:10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501048

Community‐driven user evaluation of the Inuvialuit cultural heritage digital library

2018· article· en· W2914064544 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ali Shiri, Robyn Stobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUsabilityCultural heritageUser interfaceInterface (matter)World Wide WebComputer scienceDigital libraryIndigenousUser experience designGeographyHuman–computer interactionArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Preservation of and access to aboriginal and indigenous cultural heritage is emerging as a key area of information science research and development. In this study, we report on a community‐driven user interface evaluation within a cultural heritage digital library that was developed for the Inuit communities in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Canada's north. The study adopted a culturally‐aware, multi‐method and multidisciplinary user evaluation framework to examine the usability and usefulness of the Digital Library North user interface. The three‐phase user evaluation study consisted of such methods and approaches as environmental scanning, surveys, interviews, information audits, information tables, open houses as well as various community workshops. The iterative nature of the digital library interface development and usability evaluation provided rich and varied feedback and suggestions for the improvement of the user interface and its searching, browsing and navigation functionalities. The three thematized categories that emerged from the diverse data collected over the course of the three phases include user engagement, search and browse, and interface features. The study found that the development of cultural heritage digital libraries and their user interfaces for northern communities requires diverse, multidisciplinary and longitudinal methodologies that ensure their success, and more importantly, their sustainability and acceptance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207