Analysis of Designer Emotions in Collaborative and Traditional Computer-Aided Design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We developed a new method to link designer emotions with corresponding designer activities while using computer-aided design (cad) software. Our method employs automated facial emotion detection software and cursor tracking. We applied this method via an experiment with nine participants, each working with the same synchronously collaborative cad platform, and assigned a series of cad tasks in one of two distinct working styles: single participants working by themselves and paired participants working together. We analyzed and compared trends in emotion for these two working styles. Pairs, on average per person, experienced higher levels of emotion (measured as joy, sadness, anger, contempt, fear, and surprise) than individuals. We linked occurrences of each emotional response to their antecedent activities in the cad environment (navigating the model tree, sketching in the graphics area, making selections in the feature menu, and communicating using the chat window). Using a logistic regression analysis, we revealed statistically significant trends linking emotions and cad events, and we found that some emotions are more likely to occur with certain designer actions in the cad software. The method and conclusions presented in this paper allow us to better understand designer emotions in traditional and collaborative cad, which link to the established relationships between emotion and designer satisfaction, creativity, performance, and other outcomes increasingly valued by engineering designers and managers in virtually collaborative environments.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it