MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981661181 · doi:10.22215/etd/2017-12207

An Adaptive User Interface for Walking While Reading on a Mobile Device

2017· dissertation· en· W2981661181 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle Hamel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrollReading (process)Human–computer interactionUsabilityComputer scienceContext (archaeology)ZoomMobile deviceInterface (matter)ComprehensionUser interfaceMultimediaEngineeringWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smartphones are constantly being used in different use scenarios and contexts.This Thesis puts forth the notion that Adaptive User Interfaces (AUIs) can be implemented in mobile devices to help mitigate the negative usability effects associated with certain contexts.Using an auto-scroll and an auto-scroll + zoom function, two different AUIs were implemented to see if it is possible to mitigate the negative effects associated with reading while walking.Participants using these two interfaces, along with a static interface, were tested on reading comprehension tests while either sitting or walking a course with pedestrian traffic.The results indicate that the walking context had an adverse effect on reading comprehension.Participants most preferred an AUI interface while walking, with the auto-scroll AUI resulting in faster walking, faster course completion, and faster reading.It is concluded that AUIs can be used to alleviate some negative effects associated with concurrent reading and walking.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207