MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039631248 · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.12094191.v1

Towards the Design and Evaluation of Interactive Technologies for Social Good

2020· preprint· en· W3039631248 on OpenAlexaff
Souvik Mukherjee, Ngudup Tsering, Jinan Fiaidhi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeEmerging technologiesSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceWork (physics)SociologyEngineering ethicsData scienceEngineeringPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer science permeates our everyday lives in almost every space in the modern fast-paced world. The potential of computer science to address the world’s most complex and immediate problems is unbounded. Digital technologies have connected us to the globe, and yet after coming this far, mere technical knowledge does not seem to suffice a cause that is above the global technological requirement. Creative and interdisciplinary solutions that encompass an understanding of technology and people, along with a deep desire to improve the state of the world is the need of the hour, that is, application of cross-discipline aspects from society and technology towards development of social cause. This report gives a qualitative case study of quantitative surveys that address two of the major social challenges experienced by the society on a global scale, and explore solutions and recommendations with interactive technologies to address them. The report also discusses potential applications of mixed reality, and argues that collaborative mixed reality can be deployed towards achieving the interaction goal between different communication groups. It also suggests and proposes the employment of collaborative mixed reality games as a probable solution to minimize the social barriers encountered. The work draws upon psychology, cultural anthropology, and art and urban studies along with application areas from fields of human-computer interaction, computer supported cooperative work, and ubiquitous computing.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.086
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.086
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207