MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283717364 · doi:10.35784/jcsi.2820

Preferences of modern mobile app users

2022· article· en· W4283717364 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computer Sciences Institute · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Rights and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMobile appsInternet privacyDownloadMobile deviceProduct (mathematics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Computer scienceHabitWorld Wide WebApp storeAdvertisingBusinessPsychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each user group has its own preferences for mobile applications. A better app will increase the satisfaction of existing users and encourage new people to download it. People are used to it that it's hard to get rid of them. A survey was conducted in the Włodawa district in the first quarter of 2020, in which 150 random people took part. It has been noticed that life with a mobile device in hand has become a habit. Users more willingly and more often use the help of mobile devices during shopping while looking for product information and promotions. It has been observed that users pay more attention to application security, wanting to be sure that their data is safe. A small group of people would give up their mobile device and start using traditional methods

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.245 · 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