MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1485043819 · doi:10.11575/prism/30813

Where Are You and When Are You Coming Home? Foundations of Interpersonal Awareness

2004· article· en· W1485043819 on OpenAlexaff
Carmen Neustaedter, Kathryn Elliot, Anthony Tang, Saul Greenberg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpersonal communicationPsychologyInterpersonal relationshipSocial psychologyInternet privacyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A barely explored frontier in HCI is how computers can augment the everyday social world of home inhabitants. Within this rich setting, our own focus is on how people naturally maintain interpersonal awareness for members of their household and other individuals in their personal lives. We carried out an exploratory study designed to: a) define the interpersonal relationships critical to home members, and b) articulate the needs of home members for maintaining awareness of the activities and lives of these people. Our results identify three types of interpersonal awareness: home, intimate, and extended awareness. For each type, we identify the people for whom this awareness is desired; the actual awareness information wanted; and the current techniques people use to maintain this awareness. Our results also identify two problems that inhibit people s maintenance of this awareness: time constraints, and distance/time separation. These results motivate and lay the foundations for groupware that augments how home inhabitants maintain interpersonal awareness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207