MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W206625662 · doi:10.17705/1thci.00011

HCI Research: Future Challenges and Directions

2010· article· en· W206625662 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

VenueAIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsRoyal Society of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Field (mathematics)Engineering ethicsPlan (archaeology)Work (physics)Computer scienceKnowledge managementSociologyData sciencePublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary reflects my personal views of the future research challenges and directions in human-computer interaction (HCI) research in the field of Management Information Systems (MIS). It may be that many in our community do not share my concerns about the issues I consider important and the challenges we face. My intent here is not to argue that others should pursue approaches similar to mine, or to predict what type of work would be most fruitful and important in the future. Rather, my intent is to share some of the principles and ideas I would like to follow in my future research. I hope that these comments will lead to a debate (in this AIS Transactions) about how our community should plan for the future in HCI research and how we can make it more relevant, interesting and exciting.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.225 · 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