Practice-based Design of a Neighborhood Portal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper contributes to the current discourse on practice-based research in HCI paying particular attention to the overall temporal and situational conditions which frame an R&D project. We present a Living Lab study situated in an arbitrary neighborhood of a German city which develops ICT support to foster informal help and social interaction with a special, but not exclusive, focus on elderly tenants. We demonstrate that practice-based, long-term research in a city quarter goes beyond those challenges already described in the current Living Lab and PD literature. The long-term study's positioning in a real-world context is contoured not only by a high diversity of stakeholders and their individual interests and motivation for participation but also by their individual skill sets and learning needs. These distinct and often contradictive perspectives have to be permanently counterbalanced. Thus attention has to be focused on how related strategies and decisions impact on the design of the project as well as on the final ICT product. To enable all tenants, irrespective of age and technical skill, to participate in a long-term ICT-based community development project, we applied the format of 'experience-based PD workshops' to foster confidence in ICT usage and encourage the competency of the elderly and non-tech-savvy tenants.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".