MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3036887358 · doi:10.3233/shti200327

User Experience Theories, Models, and Frameworks: A Focused Review of the Healthcare Literature

2020· review· en· W3036887358 on OpenAlexaff
Blake Lesselroth, Helen Monkman, Kathleen Adams, Scott D. Wood, Audrey Corbett, Juell Homco, Elizabeth M. Borycki, Ross Spier, André Kushniruk

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Computer scienceHealth careUser experience designSelection (genetic algorithm)Fragmentation (computing)Knowledge managementData scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

User experience (UX) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) help scope user-centered design activities, aid in the selection of constructs and measures, and contextualize findings within a larger knowledge base. However, the fragmentation of literature across disciplines and the inconsistent use of TMFs makes integrating concepts and selecting UX tools challenging. Therefore, we conducted a focused review of the healthcare literature to identify a succinct list of UX-specific TMFs for academic UX researchers and industry practitioners alike.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207