MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415622466 · doi:10.1145/3772716

Are Word Suggestions Beneficial? The Effect of Typing Efficiency and Suggestion Accuracy

2025· article· en· W4415622466 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTypingWord (group theory)Feature (linguistics)AutomationCharacter (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Word suggestion is a common feature of typing interfaces, but previous studies have found unclear or negative impacts. We report on three studies controlling for word suggestion accuracy and typing efficiency. Our accuracy factor uses a new methodology based on common word suggestion metrics. Typing efficiency is controlled by device type in the first study, and by artificial impairments in the following two. Results show that suggestions are used less as typing efficiency increases, and only improve speed when highly accurate, even with low typing efficiency. Inline suggestions save about 4% more keystrokes and increase typing speed by 2 words per minute compared to a bar suggestions, though they are more distracting. Based on our findings, we propose a model linking suggestion usage to accuracy and typing speed, and discuss implications for designing automation features in typing systems.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.285 · 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