MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400150327 · doi:10.1007/979-8-8688-0324-6_6

Building Medium-Fidelity Prototypes

2024· book-chapter· en· W4400150327 on OpenAlexaff
Tom Green, Kevin Brandon

Bibliographic record

VenueDesign Thinking · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicArchitecture and Computational Design
Canadian institutionsGeorgetown Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFidelityComputer scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creating a set of wireframes that map out a UX Design project is a good start, but they only provide a rough idea of “where stuff goes.” Eventually, someone is going to ask, “So what does it look like?” This is where the next step in the UX Design process gets underway. A medium-fidelity prototype or mockup brings to life the “experience” behind “user experience.” They help to provide “proof of concept” and start the process of exposing the usability and accessibility issues that can only be revealed at this stage of the process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDesign ThinkingSame topicArchitecture and Computational DesignFrench-language works237,207