Personalizing persuasive technologies workshop 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that personalizing persuasive technologies can increase their effectiveness and potentially leads to sustained behavioral change. Building on the success of the workshop in the past four years which attracted 100s of participants from over 20 different countries and led to a special issue, this year's workshop will further advance the research area by addressing outstanding challenges and opportunities identified during the previous workshops and developing a new focus areas for the field. The workshop aims to connect a diverse group of researchers and practitioners interested in personalization and tailoring of persuasive technologies. Attendees are encouraged to share their experiences, ideas, discuss key challenges facing the area, and discuss how to move the field forward. The workshop will cover broad areas of personalization and tailoring, including but not limited to personalization models, computational personalization, design and evaluation methods, and personalized persuasive technologies. We welcome submissions and ideas from any domain of persuasive technology and HCI including, but not limited to health, sustainability, games, safety and security, marketing, eCommerce, entertainment, and education. Workshop papers and ideas will be archived online to be accessible to the general public.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".