MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407986554 · doi:10.3390/s25051421

TapFix: Cursorless Typographical Error Correction for Touch-Sensor Displays

2025· article· en· W4407986554 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas Dehnen, I. Scott MacKenzie, Aijun An

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSwIPeCursor (databases)Computer scienceGestureUsabilityInput methodText entryCharacter (mathematics)Human–computer interactionVirtual keyboardArtificial intelligenceComputer visionSpeech recognitionComputer hardwareMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present TapFix, a cursorless mobile text correction method for touch-sensor displays. Unlike traditional methods, TapFix eliminates the need to position a cursor to make corrections. Instead, the method allows for direct, character-level access, offering easy-to-use swipe gestures on a zoomed-in target word for corrective actions. A user study with 15 participants compared TapFix to two traditional text correction methods on Apple iOS. For each of the three methods, participants completed 100 text correction tasks of four different error types on an Apple iPhone 14 Pro. The TapFix method was on average between 43.0% and 44.1% faster than the existing methods in completing the tasks. Participants also reported experiencing 5.6% to 21.1% lower levels of frustration with TapFix, as indicated by post-experiment NASA TLX and SUS questionnaires, compared to the traditional methods. Additionally, they attributed a level of usability to TapFix that was comparable to the well-established TextMagnifier 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.609
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207