MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001484662 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.13860

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING OF USABILITY EXPERIENCES: IMPROVING UX TRAINING THROUGH EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

2019· article· en· W3001484662 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Audrey Girouard, Robert Biddle, Sonia Chiasson, Stephen Fai, Lois Frankel, T.C. Nicholas Graham, Chris M. Herdman, Bill Kapralos, Alex Ramírez

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityQueen's UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityExperiential learningKnowledge managementComputer scienceUsability engineeringMultidisciplinary approachContext (archaeology)Human–computer interactionPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Collaborative Learning of Usability Experiences (CLUE) training program1 is an NSERC CREATE grant that trains Canada's leaders in HCI. We aim to improve our trainees' capabilities across the disciplinary boundaries (Information Technology, Psychology, Computer Science, and Design), through collaborative professional skills development, experiential learning, and technical skills.
 Within human computer interaction (HCI), usability professionals employ research-based methods and principles to understand users’ conceptual models of tasks and design interfaces and experiences accordingly. There is an increased demand for skills in usability experience (UX) design and testing, yet we identify a lack of training in these skills in current graduate programs across Canada. Even in the context of multidisciplinary HCI programs, graduates often face a usability knowledge gap, which may be due to a lack of grounding in real-world contexts, without business constraints.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207