Examining Humans’ Problem-Solving Styles in Technology-Rich Environments Using Log File Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how one’s problem-solving style impacts his/her problem-solving performance in technology-rich environments. Drawing upon experiential learning theory, we extracted two behavioral indicators (i.e., planning duration for problem solving and human–computer interaction frequency) to model problem-solving styles in technology-rich environments. We employed an existing data set in which 7516 participants responded to 14 technology-based tasks of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) 2012. Clustering analyses revealed three problem-solving styles: Acting indicates a preference for active explorations; Reflecting represents a tendency to observe; and Shirking shows an inclination toward scarce tryouts and few observations. Explanatory item response modeling analyses disclosed that individuals with the Acting style outperformed those with the Reflecting or the Shirking style, and this superiority persisted across tasks with different difficulties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it