MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346173373 · doi:10.1561/1100000062

Human-Computer Interaction and International Public Policymaking: A Framework for Understanding and Taking Future Actions

2016· article· en· W2346173373 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSection (typography)Public policyAction (physics)Intersection (aeronautics)Political sciencePublic relationsInterface (matter)Computer scienceEngineering ethicsLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This monograph lays out a discussion framework for understanding the role of human–computer interaction (HCI) in public policymaking. We take an international view, discussing potential areas for research and application, and their potential for impact. Little has been written about the intersection of HCI and public policy; existing reports typically focus on one specific policy issue or incident. To date, there has been no overarching view of the areas of existing impact and potential impact. We have begun that analysis and argue here that such a global view is needed. Our aims are to provide a solid foundation for discussion, cooperation and collaborative interaction, and to outline future programs of activity. The five sections of this report provide relevant background along with a preliminary version of what we expect to be an evolving framework. Sections 1 and 2 provides an introduction to HCI and public policy. Section 3 discusses how HCI already informs public policy, with representative examples. Section 4 discusses how public policy influences HCI and provides representative public policy areas relevant to HCI, where HCI could have even more impact in the future: (i) laws, regulations, and guidelines for HCI research, (ii) HCI research assessments, (iii) research funding, (iv) laws for interface design — accessibility and language, (v) data privacy laws and regulations, (vi) intellectual property, and (vii) laws and regulations in specific sectors. There is a striking difference between where the HCI community has had impact (Section 3) and the many areas of potential involvement (Section 4). Section 5 a framework for action by the HCI community in public policy internationally. This monograph summarizes the observations and recommendations from a daylong workshop at the CHI 2013 conference in Paris, France. The workshop invited the community's perspectives regarding the intersection of governmental policies, international and domestic standards, recent HCI research discoveries, and emergent considerations and challenges. It also incorporates contributions made after the workshop by workshop participants and by individuals who were unable to participate in the workshop but whose work and interests were highly related and relevant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.179
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.234 · 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