MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535512295 · doi:10.1109/wi-iatw.2006.64

Empathic Multiple Tutoring Agents for Multiple Learner Interface

2006· article· en· W2535512295 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Wang, Jie Yang, Mark Chignell, Mitsuru Ishizuka

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionUsabilityInterface (matter)Focus (optics)Character (mathematics)EmpathyInformation exchangeUser interfaceComponent (thermodynamics)MultimediaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a multiple user e-learning interface with multiple tutoring character agents. The character agents use eye movement information to facilitate empathy-relevant reasoning and behavior. Eye Information is used to monitor user's attention and interests, to personalize the agent behaviors, and for exchanging information of different learners. The system reacts to multiple users' eye information in real-time and the empathic character agents owned by each learner exchange learner's information to help to form the online learning community. Based on these measures, the interface infers the focus of attention of the learner and responds accordingly with affective and instructional behaviors. The paper also reports on some preliminary usability test results concerning how users respond to the empathic functions and interact with other learners using the character agents

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207