Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to this issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, which will focus on contributions from the research community Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS). This diverse research community explores the methods, processes, techniques and tools that support specifying, designing, developing, deploying and verifying interactive systems. Building interactive systems is a multifaceted and challenging activity, involving a plethora of different actors and roles. This is particularly true in the domain of HCI, where we continuously push the edge of what is possible, where there is a crucial need for adequate processes, tools and methods to build reliable, useful and usable systems that help people cope with the ever-increasing complexity of work and life. The contents of this issue on EICS is the sum of four separate rounds of submissions, evenly spaced from July 2017 through May 2018. In total, the rounds attracted a total of 81 submissions from Asia, Canada, Australia, Europe, Africa, and the United States. Promising submissions in a round that were not accepted were invited to resubmit to a subsequent round, and 6 of the papers appearing in this issue were accepted after at least one round of resubmission. In each round, papers were subject to a rigorous reviewing process where they were reviewed by two EICS senior editors, as well as external reviewers. At the conclusion of each round, a Virtual Committee meeting was held to discuss all of the papers and arrive at final decisions. Ultimately, 14 papers were accepted over all rounds. This issue exists because of the dedicated volunteer effort of 20 senior editors who handled two to four papers each round, and 115 expert reviewers to ensure high quality and insightful reviews for all papers in all rounds. Reviewers and committee members were kept constant as much as possible for papers that were submitted to multiple rounds. Senior members of the editorial group also helped shepherd some papers, reflecting the deep commitment of this research community. We are excited by the detailed and insightful work that resulted in this PACMHCI EICS issue and look forward to equally high quality submissions in subsequent submission cycles over the coming year. For those interested in this area, this group holds their next annual conference June 19-22, 2018 in Paris, France. That conference will provide many opportunities to share ideas with other researchers and practitioners from institutions around the world.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,372 | 0,254 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».