Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction: changing roles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NordiCHI is the main forum for human-computer interaction research in the Nordic countries. It is a biannual conference, and the three first conferences were held in Stockholm (2000), Arhus (2002) and Tampere (2004), respectively. This year's conference is held in Oslo and is hosted by the Norwegian Computing Society (NCS). It is a joint effort (dugnad), joining together a large portion of the Norwegian HCI community in academia, research and industry. Each fall for the last 8 years NCS has arranged a two-day conference on usability, user experience and documentation called Yggdrasil. NordiCHI incorporates this year's Yggdrasil conference. The most visible result of this is that NordiCHI 2006 has defined Industrial Experience Reports as a new contribution category.The main theme for this year's conference is Changing roles. We currently see a reshaping of almost every aspect of society, which is caused by the forces of globalization and innovative uses of personal technologies in the networked society. Do we need to change our roles as developers, researchers and designers? How can we maintain focus on the user in this rapidly changing environment? Will the role of HCI change? The broad call for participation elicited excellent response in the HCI community, and we are happy to provide a high-quality technical program that combines the best of the Nordic tradition with emerging trends in interaction techniques and new approaches to study human-computer interaction. The technical program combines four different categories of submissions: Long papers, short papers, industrial experience reports and interactive events (demonstrations). We received 134 long papers, 123 short papers and 16 industrial experience reports. An international committee, totalling 98 reviewers, helped in the selection process. Each submission received at least 3 reviews. In the end we accepted 37 long papers, 28 short papers (18 for plenum presentation and 10 posters) and 8 industrial experience reports. The proceeding also includes documentation of interactive events. The acceptance rate for long papers was 28% and 23% for short papers. The submitted long papers represent 21 countries and the accepted papers came from 11 countries (about half of these from countries outside the Nordic region), and distributed as follows:Austria: 2Canada: 2Denmark: 3Finland: 3Germany: 2Iceland: 1Italy: 2Norway: 2Sweden: 8UK: 8USA: 4
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.017 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".