Storywork & Reciprocity: On the Design of an Audio Documentary that Extends HCI Research back to Participants
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
Participatory design means building reciprocal relationships with research participants and opening up conversations with larger communities. We describe and reflect on our design-led research of creating an hour-long audio documentary. Participants’ desires to better understand the experiences of others within our study is our key motivation. We see the creation of the documentary as an important reciprocal step to invite further participation within a longer-term, multi-year project. Rooted in a decolonial perspective on translating academic knowledge to the general public, our work builds on our own prior fieldwork with 9 people with blindness on their reminiscence experiences. The audio documentary aims to deliver insights from research findings and inquiries, inspired by participants' stories through their voices in the interview recordings. The documentary serves as a gift for participation and a genuine invitation for future research. We conclude with opportunities for future HCI research and practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 it