MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255223066 · doi:10.20380/gi2015.32

Postulater: the design and evaluation of a time-delayed media sharing system

2015· article· en· W2255223066 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Hawkins, Carman Neustaedter, Jason Procyk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Human-Computer Communications Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSocial mediaMeaning (existential)Affect (linguistics)MultimediaInternet privacySpectacleSpace (punctuation)World Wide WebPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Personal media sharing of photos and video has become a spectacle of the immediate, yet it may come at the cost of meaning and significance. To explore this design space, we created a new tool, Postulater, that supports time-delayed photo and video sharing. Our goal was to understand how media sharing tools should be designed and how they might be used for sending media, if users were able to select delivery time explicitly. We conducted a field evaluation of Postulater over six weeks and found that participants valued sending time-based messages to send reminders, share personal memories and reflections, affect future time periods, and send social greetings. Yet these messaging acts often garnered strong emotions from our participants. The implication is that time-based messaging systems should be designed in a cautionary way that balances the need to send messages 'into the future' with complex human emotions that such practices can create.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Human-Computer Communications SocietySame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207