Usability Evaluation of the SmartWheeler through Qualitative and Quantitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intelligent powered wheelchairs remain a popular research topic that can improve users' quality of life. Although our multidisciplinary research team has put a lot of effort into adding features based on end-users needs and impairments since 2006, there are still open issues regarding the usability and functionalities of an intelligent powered wheelchair (IPW). METHODS: For this reason, this research presents an experience with our IPW followed by a study in two parts: a quantitative one based on the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and a qualitative one through open questions regarding IPW functionalities with novice users, e.g., IPW non-users. These users never used an IPW before, but are users and aware of the impacts of the technology used in our IPW, being undergraduate to postdoctoral students and staff (faculty, lecturers, research engineers) at the Faculty of Engineering of Université de Sherbrooke. RESULTS: The qualitative analyses identified different behaviours among the novice users. The quantitative analysis via SUS questionnaire done with novice users reports an "okay" rating (equivalent with a C grade or 68 SUS Score) for our IPW's usability. Moreover, advantages and disadvantages opinions were gathered on the IPW as well as comments which can be used to improve the system. CONCLUSIONS: The results reported in these studies show that the system, e.g., IPW, was judged to be sufficiently usable and robust by novice users, with and without experience with the software used in developing the IPW.
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 | 0.070 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".