Web portal characteristics: Children as designers and evaluators. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two intergenerational design teams comprising respectively elementary school students from grades six and three, together with three adult researchers, designed two low-tech web portal prototypes specifically targeted at the students ’ peers. These portals were subsequently converted into working portals that can be used to find information on the Web relating to Canadian history and deemed appropriate for an elementary school audience. This paper presents the evaluations of the two portals conducted by eight focus groups (four from grade-three students and four from grade-six students). Résumé: Deux équipes intergénérationnelles de conception composées respectivement d’élèves de l’école primaire de sixième et de troisième année, de même que trois adultes chercheurs ont conçu deux prototypes de portails Web de faible technicité spécifiquement destinés à des élèves de cet âge. Ces portails ont été convertis par la suite en portails de travail pouvant être utilisés pour la recherche d’information sur le Web concernant l’Histoire canadienne et ont été jugés appropriés pour des utilisateurs de l’école primaire. Cet article présente les évaluations des deux portails effectuées par huit groupes de discussion (quatre par des élèves de troisième année et quatre par des élèves de sixième année). 1.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it