MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6913032531 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.826439

Presentation Of The Paper "Improving Success/Completion Ratio In Large Surveys: A Proposal Based On Usability And Engagement" In Hcii 2017

2017· article· en· W6913032531 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityPresentation (obstetrics)Session (web analytics)PopulationTest (biology)Computer-assisted web interviewingQuestionnaire

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the presentation of the paper entitled “Improving success/completion ratio in large surveys: a proposal based on usability and engagement” in the Emerging interactive systems for education session at the HCI International 2017 Conference, held in Vancouver, Canada, 9 - 14 July 2017. This paper presents a research focused on improve the success/completion ratio in large surveys. In this case, the large survey is the questionnaire produced by the Spanish Observatory for University Employability and Employment. This questionnaire is composed by about 32 and 60 questions and between 86 and 181 variables to be measured. The research is based on the previous experience of a past questionnaire proposed also by the Observatory composed also by a large amount of questions and variables to be measured (63-92 questions and 176-279 variables). After analysing the target population of the questionnaire (also comparing with the tar-get population of the previous questionnaire) and reviewing the literature, the researchers have designed 11 proposals for changes related to the questionnaire that could improve the users’ completion and success ratios (changes that could improve the users’ trust in the questionnaire, the questionnaire usability and user experience or the users’ engagement to the questionnaire). These changes are planned to be applied in the questionnaire in two main different experiments based on A/B test methodologies that will allow researchers to measure the effect of the changes in different populations and in an incremental way. The proposed changes have been assessed by five experts through an evaluation questionnaire. In this questionnaire, researchers gathered the score of each expert regarding to the pertinence, relevance and clarity of each change proposed. Regarding the results of this evaluation questionnaire, the reviewers fully supported 8 out of the 11 changes proposals, so they could be introduced in the questionnaire with no variation. On the other hand, 3 of the proposed changes or improvements are not fully supported by the experts (they have not received a score in the top first quartile of the 1-7 Likert scale). These changes will not be discarded immediately, because despite they have not received a Q1 score, they received a score within the second quartile of that 1-7 Likert scale, so could be reviewed to be enhanced to fit the OEEU’s context.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.225 · 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