MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401851980 · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100473

Users and technology: A closer look at how technology engagement affects users

2024· article· en· W4401851980 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

VenueComputers in Human Behavior Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInternet privacyPsychologyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computers have gone from being a workplace tool to something we carry in our pockets. This explosion of technological growth has been supported by HCI researchers and product designers as they strive to predict and meet user needs by studying user intentions toward, and experiences with, technology to improve usability. However, psychological research shows that device usage does not come without a psychological cost to the user, an impact apparently under-considered in HCI research. We surveyed users (n = 211) on their feelings about their experiences with different aspects and types of technology when the technology performed contrary to expectations. We found that technology that was frustrating to use or performed below expectations led to users reporting more negative feelings towards their use of the technology. Findings indicate that the user experience could be improved by considering user frustration and feelings towards technology in the design 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.296 · 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