MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173796469 · doi:10.1145/3459990.3460694

PlushPal: Storytelling with Interactive Plush Toys and Machine Learning

2021· article· en· W3173796469 on OpenAlexaff
Tiffany Tseng, Yumiko Murai, Natalie Freed, Deanna Gelosi, Tung D. Ta, Yoshihiro Kawahara

Bibliographic record

VenueInteraction Design and Children · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingComputer scienceGestureInteractive storytellingContext (archaeology)MultimediaHuman–computer interactionDebuggingArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents PlushPal, a web-based design tool for children to make plush toys interactive with machine learning (ML). With PlushPal, children attach micro:bit hardware to stuffed animals, design custom gestures for their toy, and build gesture-recognition ML models to trigger their own sounds. We describe how, in the context of storytelling, PlushPal introduces core concepts in ML including data sampling and model evaluation. We conducted online workshops and in-person play sessions with 11 children between 8-14 years old building interactive stuffed animals with PlushPal. In these play sessions, we observed how children imagined bringing their toys to life using ML, as well as how children’s data literacy changed as a result of experimenting with sensors, data sampling, and building their own ML models. Our work contributes a novel design space for children to express their ideas using gesture, as well as a description of observed debugging practices, building on efforts to support children using ML to enhance creative play.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteraction Design and ChildrenSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207