MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388127676 · doi:10.1145/3626464

Using Online Videos as the Basis for Developing Design Guidelines: A Case Study of AR-Based Assembly Instructions

2023· article· en· W4388127676 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPersona Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePipeline (software)HeuristicsSet (abstract data type)Domain (mathematical analysis)TransferabilitySoftware engineeringHuman–computer interactionData scienceMachine learningProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Design guidelines serve as an important conceptual tool to guide designers of interactive applications with well-established principles and heuristics. Consulting domain experts is a common way to develop guidelines. However, experts are often not easily accessible, and their time can be expensive. This problem poses challenges in developing comprehensive and practical guidelines. We propose a new guideline development method that uses online public videos as the basis for capturing diverse patterns of design goals and interaction primitives. In a case study focusing on AR-based assembly instructions, we apply our novel Identify-Rationalize pipeline, which distills design patterns from videos featuring AR-based assembly instructions (N=146) into a set of guidelines that cover a wide range of design considerations. The evaluation conducted with 16 AR designers indicated that the pipeline is useful for generating comprehensive guidelines. We conclude by discussing the transferability and practicality of our method.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.402
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.048 · 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