Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

David R. Morse

dblp:76/6315 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2010
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 5Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Interaction techniques and input · 77% Ubiquitous computing and smart environments · 23%
Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Bioinformatics and computational biology · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 4, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input
mobile interaction
0.012000
Using while moving: HCI issues in fieldwork environments · ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 2000
Bioinformatics and computational biology
species identification
0.011987
Expert systems: frames, rules or logic for species identification? · Comput. Appl. Biosci. 1987
Bioinformatics and computational biology
taxonomy
0.011987
Expert systems: frames, rules or logic for species identification? · Comput. Appl. Biosci. 1987

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

prototype design · 0.0field trial · 0.0rule-based reasoning · 0.0probabilistic identification · 0.0frame-based representation · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2010 From XML to XML: The Why and How of Making the Biodiversity Literature Accessible to Researchers
Alistair Willis, David King, David R. Morse, Anton Dil, Chris Lyal, Dave Roberts
LREC3
2002 Direct Combination: A New User Interaction
Simon Holland, David R. Morse, Henrik Gedenryd
Mobile HCI2
2002 AudioGPS: Spatial Audio Navigation with a Minimal Attention Interface
Simon Holland, David R. Morse, Henrik Gedenryd
Pers. Ubiquitous Comput.2
2001 editoral: Situated Interaction and Context-Aware Computing
Anind K. Dey, Gerd Kortuem, David R. Morse, Albrecht Schmidt 0001
Pers. Ubiquitous Comput.3
2000 Using while moving: HCI issues in fieldwork environments
abstract
Using while moving" is the basic ability fieldwork users require of a mobile computer system.These users come from a wide range of backgrounds but have in common an extremely mobile and dynamic workplace.We identify four specific characteristics of this class of users: dynamic user configuration, limited attention capacity, high-speed interaction, and context dependency.A prototype is then presented that was designed to assist fieldworkers in data collection tasks and to explore the HCI design issues involved.The prototype was used in an extensive field trial by a group of ecologists observing giraffe behavior in Kenya.Following this trial, improvements were made to the prototype interface which in turn was tested in a subsequent field trial with another group of ecologists.From this experience, we have formulated our resulting ideas about interface design for fieldworkers into two general principles: Minimal Attention User Interfaces (MAUIs) and context awareness.The MAUI seeks to minimize the attention, though not necessarily the number of interactions, required from the user in operating a device.Context awareness enables the mobile device to provide assistance based on a knowledge of its environment.
Jason Pascoe, Nick Ryan, David R. Morse
ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact.3
1998 Developing Personal Technologies for the Field
Jason Pascoe, David R. Morse, Nick Ryan
Pers. Ubiquitous Comput.2
1987 Expert systems: frames, rules or logic for species identification?
abstract
The role of expert systems in species identification, with particular reference to the problems posed by damaged specimens and inexperienced taxonomists, is discussed. Of the three main types of expert systems available, the frame-based system is shown to provide the most appropriate model for a taxonomic expert system rather than a logic- or rule-based system. The advantages of an expert system over other computer-aided methods of identification are considered. A rule-based system requires the original knowledge (species descriptions) to be structured into rules, whereas a frame-based system can store the generic and specific descriptions in a series of frames. The frames fall into a hierarchy which closely resembles the taxonomic hierarchy, and down which information can be inherited. Two aspects of frame-based systems considered are the use of probabilities in identification, and the optimum structure of the knowledge base. The conventional use of probabilities is to provide an indication of the correctness of the result. However, in some studies involving the identification of many specimens, the speed of identification may be increased (with a reduction in accuracy) if identifications are made to a predetermined probability level. Although frames allow accurate representation of the taxonomic hierarchy, a semantic net, incorporating structures of the organism and/or details of the habitat may result in a more efficient expert system.
Marion Edwards, David R. Morse, Alan H. Fielding
Comput. Appl. Biosci.2