MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225002666 · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517584

One Week in the Future: Previs Design Futuring for HCI Research

2022· article· en· W4225002666 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationComputer scienceFidelityVisualizationInteraction designWorkbookHuman–computer interactionData scienceComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the use of cinematic “pre-visualization” (previs) techniques as a rapid ideation and design futuring method for human computer interaction (HCI) research. Previs approaches, which are widely used in animation and film production, use digital design tools to create medium-fidelity videos that capture richer interaction, motion, and context than sketches or static illustrations. When used as a design futuring method, previs can facilitate rapid, iterative discussions that reveal tensions, challenges, and opportunities for new research. We performed eight one-week design futuring sprints, in which individual HCI researchers collaborated with a lead designer to produce concept sketches, storyboards, and videos that examined future applications of their research. From these experiences, we identify recurring themes and challenges and present a One Week Futuring Workbook that other researchers can use to guide their own futuring sprints. We also highlight how variations of our approach could support other speculative design practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.358
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.053 · 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