MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399723238 · doi:10.1145/3664636

User Interface Evaluation Through Implicit-Association Tests

2024· article· en· W4399723238 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 · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)Computer scienceInterface (matter)Human–computer interactionPsychologyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implicit-association test (IAT) is a method for measuring subconscious associations between concepts in memory. It is widely used in social psychology research for assessing associations that people may be unable or unwilling to articulate, including those relating to race, gender, self harm, and risk-taking behaviour. We describe the motivation for adapting the IAT to user interface evaluation, including its potential to support rapid A/B testing that is amenable to online crowd-source dissemination, while also potentially reducing the validity risks caused by biases such as the good subject effect. We present a method (the UI-IAT) for conducting implicit association tests for A/B user interface evaluation, and we present results of two experiments demonstrating that, although the method can successfully discriminate between 'good' and 'bad' interfaces, its sensitivity is low. We discuss implications for practical use of the UI-IAT and for further work.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.299 · 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