MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785215785 · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173647

Group vs Individual

2018· article· en· W2785215785 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSensemakingMultitudeComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionTask (project management)Work (physics)Group (periodic table)Joint (building)Group workTilt (camera)Working groupData sciencePsychologyEngineeringSystems engineeringMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cross-device environments (XDEs) have been developed to support a multitude of collaborative activities. Yet, little is known about how different cross-device interaction techniques impact group collaboration, including how their impact on independent and joint work that often occurs during group work. In this work, we explore the impact of two XDE data browsing techniques: TOUCH and TILT. Through a mixed-methods study of a collaborative sensemaking task, we show that TOUCH and TILT have distinct impacts on how groups accomplish, and shift between, independent and joint work. Finally, we reflect on these findings and how they can more generally inform the design of XDEs.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations30
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicUsability and User Interface DesignFrench-language works237,207