Using interface preferences as evidence of user identity: A feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on human-computer interaction currently focuses on enhancing system usability by establishing an appropriate user interface (UI) that depends on users’ features. Online users typically have different perceptions of their favored interface design depending on their preferences. Thus, those interface preferences could be utilized to recognize online users’ identities. User authentication is another critical issue that should be considered to improve online security mechanisms without compromising usability. This study investigates the feasibility of using UI preferences as evidence of user identity. The proposed method applies to the design preferences of users dealing with online systems (e.g., e-exam and e-banking). These preferences are closely associated with individual characteristics, whether physical, cognitive, psychological, psychomotor, demographic, or experience based. Many design characteristics could be used in online systems; for example, the e-exam interface design may use features such as the font (size, color, and face), the number of questions per page, background color, questions group, timer type, and sound alert. The feasibility evaluation of this study indicated that 96.8% of research participants have variations in their preferences, and each participant kept 94.5% of their design preferences throughout different sessions.
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 | 0.028 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".