What Do We Mean by “Interaction”? An Analysis of 35 Years of CHI
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of interaction is essential to human-computer interaction, yet rarely studied. We use quantitative and qualitative methods to investigate how this notion has been used across 35 years of proceedings from the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing (CHI). Using natural language processing, we extract 53,568 occurrences of the word “interaction” across 4,604 papers. In these occurrences, we categorize 2,668 unique words that modify how “interaction” is used in a sentence. We show that the use of “interaction” is both increasing and diversifying, suggesting the importance of the notion, but also the difficulty in developing theory about interaction. Our findings show that styles of interaction are closely associated with changes in technology and that modalities and characteristics of interaction are becoming more of a topic than specific devices or widgets. Interaction qualities, relating to structure, feel, effectiveness, and efficiency, are consistently prominent, and the quality of novelty is increasingly frequent. From this analysis, we identify open questions about interaction, including how to build knowledge across changing technologies, how to work toward a model of quality for interaction, and what the core of a science of interaction could be.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it