MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128744485 · doi:10.1145/3384772.3385163

Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility: The Past, Present and Future Values of Participatory Design

2020· article· en· W3128744485 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Becker, Ann Light, Christopher Frauenberger, Dawn Walker, Victoria Palacin, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Rachel Charlotte Smith, Pedro Reynolds-Cuéllar, David Nemer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticipatory designCitizen journalismSocial responsibilityComputer scienceData sciencePublic relationsWorld Wide WebEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Values play a central role in technology design. But beyond acknowledging the politics of technology, questions remain around where those values are coming from, which values we need, and how they play out and shape the socio-technical systems we create. New challenges such as the climate crisis and societal polarization call for technologists to become part of the public and political arena. This results in a new sense of responsibility, but the closing of CPSR, the Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility, has left a gap. Today, across tech workers, academics and computing professionals, there is a renewed sense of urgency for engaging the public and politics to change course in how computing shapes society.

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)0.202
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.125
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2020.125
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.111
Scholarly communication0.0300.034
Open science0.0030.020
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207