MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1579882491 · doi:10.4230/dagrep.3.11.29

Proxemics in Human-Computer Interaction (Dagstuhl Seminar 13452)

2014· article· en· W1579882491 on OpenAlexaff
Saul Greenberg, Kasper Honbaek, Aaron Quigley, Harald Reiterer, Roman Rädle

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProxemicsInterpersonal communicationHuman–computer interactionContext (archaeology)Computer sciencePsychologySocial psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1966, anthropologist Edward Hall coined the term "proxemics." Proxemics is an area of study that identifies the culturally dependent ways in which people use interpersonal distance to understand and mediate their interactions with others. Recent research has demonstrated the use of proxemics in human-computer interaction (HCI) for supporting users' explicit and implicit interactions in a range of uses, including remote office collaboration, home entertainment, and games. One promise of proxemics is the realization of context-aware environments, which have been extensively pursued since Marc Weiser's seminal paper, "The computer for the 21st century," written in 1991. However, the potential of proxemics in HCI is still underexplored and many research questions remain unanswered. With the growing interest in using proxemics, we organized the Dagstuhl Seminar 13452 on the topic. "Proxemics in Human-Computer Interaction," was held from November 3-8, 2013, and it brought together established experts and young researchers from fields particularly relevant to Proxemic Interactions, including computer science, social science, cognitive science, and design. Through an open keynote, mini talks, brainstorming, and discussion in breakout sessions, seminar attendees identified and discussed challenges and developed directions for future research of proxemics in HCI.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207