Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.167 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.065 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.006 |
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".