MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971466850 · doi:10.1145/2617995.2617998

Designing Interaction Categories for Kinesthetic Empathy

2014· article· en· W1971466850 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Cuykendall, Thecla Schiphorst, Jim Bizzocchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesthetic learningEmpathyInteractivityMovement (music)Computer scienceHuman–computer interactionInteraction designDanceReading (process)PsychologyMultimediaAestheticsVisual artsSocial psychologyLinguisticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synchronous Objects is an interactive online dance work that allows audiences to look inside the choreographic structure of William Forsythe's One Flat Thing, reproduced (2000). Ohio State University, in collaboration with Forsythe, created twenty interactive visualizations or "objects" with varying levels of interactivity that present three main choreographic principles: alignments, cueing and movement material. This design allows users to empathize with the movement on multiple levels--shifting attention away from aesthetic biases and highlighting qualities of the movement that may otherwise be missed. We conducted a close reading analysis of the interaction design strategies employed within Synchronous Objects in order to understand what interaction design features support kinesthetic empathy. We suggest categorizing the objects into three types: instructional, exploratory, and translational and claim these interaction categories provide a useful framework for understanding how to design for kinesthetic empathy in computational models of movement. We discuss how these interaction categories represent movement through relatable images that a broader audience can appreciate and connect with. Our analysis contributes to research in movement and computation by including kinesthetic empathy as a design principle within movement representations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207