MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exploring the Relationship Between Training and Usability: A Study of the Impact of Usability Testing On Improving Training and System Deployment

2009· article· en· W79206917 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilitySoftware deploymentPersonalizationComputer scienceCognitive walkthroughUsability labWeb usabilityPluralistic walkthroughSystem usability scaleUsability engineeringUsability inspectionHealth informaticsTraining (meteorology)Human–computer interactionKnowledge managementProcess managementWorld Wide WebSoftware engineeringEngineeringMedicineNursingPublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between usability and training remains to be explored in health informatics. We examine the training given during the implementation of an institutional electronic medical record system, as well as the usability of the system from the perspective of new users who have been recently trained. We examine in which ways video-based usability testing with new users, who received classroom training one month earlier, can be used to a) indicate needed changes in the training program, and b) provide feedback to improve system customization and deployment. Usability testing methods were found to be an important adjunct to system deployment: they can improve the system implementation as well as suggest strategies for user education.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
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 head0.394
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.002 · 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