Bibliographic record
Abstract
Everyday family life involves a myriad of mundane activities that need to be planned, scheduled, and coordinated. Paper calendars are one tool used by families to help stay organized; yet, the downside is they are only available in one location and can be hard to synchronize if multiple calendars are used. Digital calendars offer promise to overcome these challenges by making family calendaring information ubiquitously accessible. However, we do not yet know how to best design digital family calendars in order to meet the coordination needs of families. I address this problem through three research stages. First, I outline a model of interpersonal awareness that is derived from contextual studies of 29 individuals. This model reveals how and why people maintain an awareness of individuals from three social groupings: home inhabitants, intimate socials, and extended socials. It shows that interpersonal awareness is fundamentally different than workplace awareness; thus, interpersonal awareness groupware should be designed to meet a range of domestic, not workplace, needs. One of these needs is groupware for family calendaring. Second, I present an empirically-based understanding of family calendaring routines that is derived from contextual interviews with 44 families. I outline how a typology of calendars is used by three different family types--- Monocentric, Pericentric, and Polycentric---where the level of family member involvement in the calendaring routine varies. I also describe the content and annotations found on family calendars. This theory is then recast as guidelines for the design of digital family calendars that are ubiquitously available to help families overcome coordination challenges. Third, I outline the participatory design and evaluation of the LINC digital family calendar. LINC includes three systems: an awareness appliance for the home; LINC Web which allows family members to check the calendar from a web browser; and, LINC Mobile which supports calendar browsing on a mobile phone while out and about. Field trials of LINC with four families show that LINC is a viable alternative to paper calendars as it allows families to maintain the benefits of their existing calendar routine while extending it in ways not afforded by paper calendars.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".