MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946797438 · doi:10.5210/jbc.v43i1.7874

Usability Guidelines for an Online Image Database

2019· article· en· W2946797438 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Chang, Donald F. Bliss, Anne Altemus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biocommunication · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsUsabilityNavigabilityComputer scienceInformation retrievalSet (abstract data type)DatabaseAuditWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are currently no existing guidelines for optimizing user experience in online image databases. Here we use established usability design principles to develop a set of 50 recommendations for improving database organization, navigability, and search functionality. We conduct a resource audit of commercial and non-profit image galleries and evaluate them upon our criteria. Our findings are summarized within a basic wireframe to be used as reference for prospective image databases in the future.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BiocommunicationSame topicImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207