Two Heads Are Better Than One: A Dimension Space for Unifying Human and Artificial Intelligence in Shared Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared control is an emerging interaction paradigm in which a human and an AI partner collaboratively control a system. Shared control unifies human and artificial intelligence, making the human’s interactions with computers more accessible, safe, precise, effective, creative, and playful. This form of interaction has independently emerged in contexts as varied as mobility assistance, driving, surgery, and digital games. These domains each have their own problems, terminology, and design philosophies. Without a common language for describing interactions in shared control, it is difficult for designers working in one domain to share their knowledge with designers working in another. To address this problem, we present a dimension space for shared control, based on a survey of 55 shared control systems from six different problem domains. This design space analysis tool enables designers to classify existing systems, make comparisons between them, identify higher-level design patterns, and imagine solutions to novel problems.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".