MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411635343 · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2025.114499

Impact of categorization autonomy on effective use and adoption intentions

2025· article· en· W4411635343 on OpenAlexaff
Arash Saghafi, Poonacha K. Medappa, Ariton Debrliev

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Support Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationAutonomyPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Category tree view is an omnipresent element in graphical user interfaces where it captures information in terms of a hierarchical structure. These categorization trees facilitate human users' cognitive economy and decision-making. While previous research has investigated the utilities of using unstructured data compared to pre-categorized information by business users, the effectiveness of allowing users the autonomy to create their own categorization hierarchies from generic object types remains unexplored. This paper evaluates the benefits of categorization autonomy in terms of search precision, as an objective measure, as well as subjective intentions to use the system. We examined users' interactions with a platform in information seeking tasks with 201 subjects. Our findings indicate that categorization autonomy leads to superior results, both in terms of effective use and behavioral perceptions. We also found that the impact of categorization autonomy is moderated by task flexibility, such that the benefits are more apparent in tasks that necessitate open-ended search approaches. By focusing on how user-driven categorization influences system interaction, our study contributes to the design of decision support systems that are better aligned with users' cognitive structures and task demands.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Support SystemsSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207