MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903187783

Children and embodied interaction: Seeking common ground

2009· other· en· W2903187783 on OpenAlexaff
Ylva Fernaeus, Paul Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueUCL Discovery (University College London) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionPerspective (graphical)Human–computer interactionSet (abstract data type)Embodied agentCognitive scienceInteraction designCommon groundGestureComputer scienceIdentification (biology)CognitionCognitive roboticsPerspective-takingPsychologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As computation plays an ever larger role as an embedded part of the environment, research that seeks to understand the embodied nature of children's interactions with computation becomes increasingly important. Embodied interaction is an approach to understanding human-computer interaction that seeks to investigate and support the complex interplay of mind, body and environment in interaction. Recently, such a perspective has been used to discuss human actions and interactions with a range of computational applications including tangibles, mobiles, robotics and gesture-based interfaces. Physically-based forms of child computer interaction including body movements, the ability to touch, feel, manipulate and build sensory awareness of the relationships in the world are crucial to children's cognitive and social development. This workshop aims to critically explore the different approaches to incorporating an embodied perspective in children's interaction design and HCI research, and to develop a shared set of understandings and identification of differences, similarities and synergies between our research approaches. Copyright 2009 ACM.

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 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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUCL Discovery (University College London)Same topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207