MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046550935 · doi:10.1145/3401335.3401367

Pushing LIMITS

2020· article· en· W3046550935 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Kaczmarek, Saguna Shankar, Rodrigo dos Santos, Eric M. Meyers, Lisa P. Nathan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobeComputer scienceBridge (graph theory)DisciplineSociotechnical systemVariety (cybernetics)PoliticsPolitical scienceData scienceKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a pandemic rages and ecosystems around the globe collapse, the LIMITS community---along with the rest of the world---is working to adapt. Some adaptations to adjust to emergencies are easy to imagine. For example, months before in-person conferences were canceled in response to COVID-19, the User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) 2019 conference took significant steps towards hosting a geographically distributed, virtual conference, in part adapting to the global climate emergency. This type of change is conceptually clear, if organizationally challenging. However, many needed changes are conceptually difficult, even in the midst of an existential crisis. It is long-recognized that we need to bridge the separation between scholarly venues and publications that focus on technical aspects of computing systems (i.e., "applied") and those that center social and political aspects of computing systems research and design, particularly when attempting to address complex life-wide problems. Yet, disciplinary crystals (e.g., siloes) remain resistant to change. The authors of this paper contribute to ongoing socio-technical efforts, identifying dominant practices and forces that reinforce the socio-technical divide, and holding up empirical projects that offer promising alternatives.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207