MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3144668312

Evaluating the evaluator:modelling systematic data analysis strategies for software selection

2004· other· en· W3144668312 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jo Lumsden

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Software engineeringSoftwareSoftware constructionSoftware developmentSelection (genetic algorithm)Data scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developers of interactive software are confronted by an increasing variety of software tools to help engineer the interactive aspects of software applications. Not only do these tools fall into different categories in terms of functionality, but within each category there is a growing number of competing tools with similar, although not identical, features. Choice of user interface development tool (UIDT) is therefore becoming increasingly complex.

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)0.301
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.652
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3010.652
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0090.016
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207