Roles of an Interactive Media Façade in a Digital Agora
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a component of urban civic infrastructures, interactive screen technology is often studied, designed and produced top-down style to accommodate the diverging interests of its stakeholders. However, some HCI researchers are calling for new interaction design strategies that could help close the gap between top-down and bottom-up approaches in the study of situated interfaces used for civic engagement. Our paper reports on the public deployment of an interactive platform that might anticipate this next generation of situated interfaces. In Fall 2013, we conducted a ten-week qualitative field evaluation of Mégaphone, a digitally-augmented agora deployed in Montréal's Quartier des Spectacles. Using ethnographic research methods, we collected data in-the-wild and conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with over 21 participants to understand why and how urbanites used the installation. This paper presents five conceptual categories that describe the most salient forms of interaction that we observed between users and Mégaphone's voice-activated media façade.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it