Mixed Method Development of Evaluation Metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designers of online search and recommendation services often need to develop metrics to assess system performance. This tutorial focuses on mixed methods approaches to developing user-focused evaluation metrics. This starts with choosing how data is logged or how to interpret current logged data, with a discussion of how qualitative insights and design decisions can restrict or enable certain types of logging. When we create a metric from that logged data, there are underlying assumptions about how users interact with the system and evaluate those interactions. We will cover what these assumptions look like for some traditional system evaluation metrics and highlight quantitative and qualitative methods that investigate and adapt these assumptions to be more explicit and expressive of genuine user behavior. We discuss the role that mixed methods teams can play at each stage of metric development, starting with data collection, designing both online and offline metrics, and supervising metric selection for decision making. We describe case studies and examples of these methods applied in the context of evaluating personalized search and recommendation systems. Finally, we close with practical advice for applied quantitative researchers who may be in the early stages of planning collaborations with qualitative researchers for mixed methods metrics development.
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 | 0.290 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".