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
Building and maintaining common ground is vital for effective collaboration in CSCW. Moreover, subtle changes in a CSCW user interface can significantly impact grounding and collaborative processes. Yet, researchers and technology designers lack tools to understand how specific user interface designs may hinder or facilitate communication grounding. In this work, we leverage the well-established theory of communication grounding to develop a visual framework, called Joint Action Storyboards (JASs), to analyze and articulate how interaction minutiae impact the costs of communication grounding. JASs can depict an integrated view of mental actions of collaborators, their physical interactions with each other and the CSCW environment, and the corresponding grounding costs incurred. We present the development of JASs and discuss its various benefits for HCI and CSCW research. Through a series of case studies, we demonstrate how JASs provide an analysis tool for researchers and technology designers and serve as a tool to articulate the impact of interaction minutiae on communication grounding.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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