Explainability via Interactivity? Supporting Nonexperts’ Sensemaking of pre-trained CNN by Interacting with Their Daily Surroundings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current research on Explainable AI (XAI) heavily targets on expert users (data scientists or AI developers). However, increasing importance has been argued for making AI more understandable to nonexperts, who are expected to leverage AI techniques, but have limited knowledge about AI. We present a mobile application to support nonexperts to interactively make sense of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN); it allows users to play with a pre-trained CNN by taking pictures of their surrounding objects. We use an up-to-date XAI technique (Class Activation Map) to intuitively visualize the model’s decision (the most important image regions that lead to a certain result). Deployed in a university course, this playful learning tool was found to support design students to gain vivid understandings about the capabilities and limitations of pre-trained CNNs in real-world environments. Concrete examples of students’ playful explorations are reported to characterize their sensemaking processes reflecting different depths of thought.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".