Classifying a Person’s Degree of Accessibility From Natural Body Language During Social Human–Robot Interactions
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
For social robots to be successfully integrated and accepted within society, they need to be able to interpret human social cues that are displayed through natural modes of communication. In particular, a key challenge in the design of social robots is developing the robot's ability to recognize a person's affective states (emotions, moods, and attitudes) in order to respond appropriately during social human-robot interactions (HRIs). In this paper, we present and discuss social HRI experiments we have conducted to investigate the development of an accessibility-aware social robot able to autonomously determine a person's degree of accessibility (rapport, openness) toward the robot based on the person's natural static body language. In particular, we present two one-on-one HRI experiments to: 1) determine the performance of our automated system in being able to recognize and classify a person's accessibility levels and 2) investigate how people interact with an accessibility-aware robot which determines its own behaviors based on a person's speech and accessibility levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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