MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553403662 · doi:10.1109/iccnc.2015.7069418

The affect-aware city

2015· article· en· W1553403662 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

Venue2015 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotion and Mood Recognition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Smart cityOrder (exchange)Field (mathematics)Computer scienceAffective computingQuality (philosophy)Knowledge managementHuman–computer interactionInternet privacyInternet of ThingsBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of smart cities can be summarized as optimizing the city's services (transportation, utilities, safety and many others) in order to improve the quality of life of its residents. A means to this goal is the heavy use of information and communications technology to give the city awareness of the real world and enable intelligent decision making. At the same time, the field of Affective Computing aims to give machines the ability to interpret and utilize human emotions. It is argued that emotions are an inseparable aspect of human intelligence. We thus propose our vision of the affect-aware city. By being capable of understanding the affective states of its citizens, the city's decision making processes can be brought in line with what truly matters to the people. We give an overview of the relevant affective states. We show how they can be detected individually and then aggregated into a global model of affect. The paper concludes with some inspiring applications that are possible in an affective city.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.179 · 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