MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611270666 · doi:10.1145/3027063.3053240

Communicating Through A Telepresence Robot

2017· article· en· W2611270666 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotHuman–computer interactionTeleroboticsComputer scienceAutonomyMultimediaMobile robotArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telepresence robots have the potential to better replicate the qualities of in-person interactions than traditional communication tools, however, there are few studies of their use in domestic contexts. In our study, we explored how two long distance couples used commercially available telepresence robots called Beam® Smart Presence systems (Beam+ model) for one month, and collected data from three semi-structured interviews per couple. Analysis revealed the importance of four aspects of telepresence robot communication: 1. Autonomy, 2. Unpredictability, 3. Movement as body language, and 4. Perspectives. These insights provide a preliminary understanding of the use of telepresence robots for communication in LDRs, and can be used to inform future design work.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.211
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207