Memories of Video: Impact of Sequencing on Rated Technical Quality for Viewed and Visualized Disruptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we explore how memories of experience with streaming video affect Quality of Experience (QoE) indicators that are of interest to service providers and marketers. Since observations of experience are time consuming, and the effects of technical quality (TQ) are difficult to entangle from content quality (CQ), we examined the impact of a visualization methodology for assessing experiences. A study was carried out to examine how well overall technical quality (TQ) judgments for a sequence of visualized video experience (a picture of a red video playbar with yellow portions indicating disrupted video in place of actually viewed video) would correspond to overall TQ judgments made after watching a sequence of actual videos. Sequencing effects found in overall TQ ratings, made after viewing visualizations (with their overlaid disruptions) were similar to sequencing effects found after viewing actual videos. However, the sequencing effects after viewing the visualizations were less pronounced than the corresponding sequencing effects that were found after viewing actual videos. Sequences of both visualized and actually viewed videos showed significant negative end effect and trend effects (both positive and negative). There was also evidence that sequencing effects respond to relative change in TQ rather than absolute TQ.
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 | 0.002 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".