MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913670070 · doi:10.1145/3179426

Welcome Letter

2018· article· en· W2913670070 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)USableData scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Subject (documents)Operations researchWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welcome to this issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, which will focus on contributions from the research community Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS). This diverse research community explores the methods, processes, techniques and tools that support specifying, designing, developing, deploying and verifying interactive systems. Building interactive systems is a multifaceted and challenging activity, involving a plethora of different actors and roles. This is particularly true in the domain of HCI, where we continuously push the edge of what is possible, where there is a crucial need for adequate processes, tools and methods to build reliable, useful and usable systems that help people cope with the ever-increasing complexity of work and life. The contents of this issue on EICS is the sum of four separate rounds of submissions, evenly spaced from July 2017 through May 2018. In total, the rounds attracted a total of 81 submissions from Asia, Canada, Australia, Europe, Africa, and the United States. Promising submissions in a round that were not accepted were invited to resubmit to a subsequent round, and 6 of the papers appearing in this issue were accepted after at least one round of resubmission. In each round, papers were subject to a rigorous reviewing process where they were reviewed by two EICS senior editors, as well as external reviewers. At the conclusion of each round, a Virtual Committee meeting was held to discuss all of the papers and arrive at final decisions. Ultimately, 14 papers were accepted over all rounds. This issue exists because of the dedicated volunteer effort of 20 senior editors who handled two to four papers each round, and 115 expert reviewers to ensure high quality and insightful reviews for all papers in all rounds. Reviewers and committee members were kept constant as much as possible for papers that were submitted to multiple rounds. Senior members of the editorial group also helped shepherd some papers, reflecting the deep commitment of this research community. We are excited by the detailed and insightful work that resulted in this PACMHCI EICS issue and look forward to equally high quality submissions in subsequent submission cycles over the coming year. For those interested in this area, this group holds their next annual conference June 19-22, 2018 in Paris, France. That conference will provide many opportunities to share ideas with other researchers and practitioners from institutions around the world.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.250 · 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