MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168899303 · doi:10.1109/hicss.2006.107

CrystalChat: Visualizing Personal Chat History

2006· article· en· W2168899303 on OpenAlexafffund
Annie Tat, Sheelagh Carpendale

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsConversationInstant messagingComputer scienceSocial mediaWorld Wide WebMoresTone (literature)VisualizationMultimediaHuman–computer interactionPsychologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As more people take part in online conversations, awareness of the varying conversational styles and social mores afforded by different software is growing. However, this awareness is largely built on personal impressions as varying styles of social interactions are hard to discover in text-based presentations. Through visualization we explore social and temporal interactions in instant messaging. CrystalChat visualizes personal chat history. Rather than showing online social networks that indicate merely who talks to who, CrystalChat reveals the patterns in an individual’s communications with those people who are part of their personal chat history. The patterns revealed come from instant messaging data that includes information about temporal clustering, conversation initiation, conversation termination, length of conversations, length of postings, patterns of repetitive or alternating postings, and emotional tone as represented by emoticons.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations39
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207