Incremental Estimation of Users’ Expertise Level
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimating a user's expertise level based on observations of their actions will result in better human-robot collaboration, by enabling the robot to adjust its behaviour and the assistance it provides according to the skills of the particular user it's interacting with. This paper details an approach to incrementally and continually estimate the expertise of a user whose goal is to optimally complete a given task. The user's expertise level, here represented as a scalar parameter, is estimated by evaluating how far their actions are from optimal. The proposed approach was tested using data from an online study where participants were asked to complete various instances of a simulated kitting task. An optimal planner was used to estimate the “goodness” of all available actions at any given task state. We found that our expertise level estimates correlate strongly with observed after-task performance metrics and that it is possible to differentiate novices from experts after observing, on average, 33% of the errors made by the novices.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it