MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941349331 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-951-5-375

Thought Spot: Embedding Usability Testing into the Development Cycle

2019· article· en· W2941349331 on OpenAlexaff
Shehab Sennah, Jenny Shi, Elisa Hollenberg, Andrew Johnson, David Wiljer

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityHeuristic evaluationUsability engineeringComputer scienceTimelineLearnabilityUsability inspectionCognitive walkthroughPluralistic walkthroughHuman–computer interactionProcess managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Usability testing is a vital component in the development of any digital innovation. Thought Spot, a mental health and wellness mobile application designed for and by transition-aged youth, underwent three distinct phases of usability testing (lab testing, field testing and heuristic evaluations). Testing highlighted that participants generally had a positive experience with the platform. Although some app functions were initially difficult for users, positive trends in learnability were observed. The key lesson learned from this process is the need for iterative testing timelines, concurrent with app development.

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)0.048
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0480.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207