PACMHCI V5, CHI PLAY, September 2021 Editorial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its inaugural edition in 2014, the ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (CHI PLAY) has grown to become the premier ACM SIGCHI venue for playercomputer interaction, bringing together researchers and professionals across all areas of play, games, and human-computer interaction. This year, CHI PLAY has moved its publications to a journal-based model, and we are pleased to present the first issue of the Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction that contains full paper contributions from the CHI PLAY community. This issue has 64 papers that were accepted in the 2021 cycle of the CHI PLAY conference. Over two rounds, a total of 250 papers were submitted for review and our acceptance rate is 25.6%. Thework published in this volume represents the contributions from the 2021 program committee, including external reviewers, associate chairs, and editors. Together, we have engaged in a revised reviewing process that saw several major changes. First, we moved to a revise and resubmit process to address existing inequities in submission and review, improve the quality of the review process, and increase the reach of our community's research. Second, we made major changes to our review form to improve the review process, while also easing the burden of review, along with explicitlywelcoming different contribution types and managing the complexities of interdisciplinary evaluation. We would like to acknowledge the efforts that our community has made in adapting to this new process, ensuring rigorous review during a global pandemic, and working together with the submitting authors to achieve high-quality scholarship. In this issue, the majority of contributions are empirical in nature, with fifteen papers classified by the authors as using qualitative methods, fifteen using quantitative methods, and nine using mixed methods. We also publish seven papers presenting design artefacts and three presenting technical artefacts. Finally, we include four papers employing meta-research methods, two papers that present new methodological approaches, and nine papers that contribute to the development and validation of theory.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 0.082 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".