MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284892403 · doi:10.1145/3534622

Social Emotional Learning with Conversational Agents

2022· article· en· W4284892403 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yue Fu, Rebecca Michelson, Yifan Lin, Lynn K. Nguyen, Tala June Tayebi, Alexis Hiniker

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJacobs FoundationCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsPsychologyActive listeningPolitenessConversationEmotional intelligenceSocial skillsEmotional competenceOptimismWorrySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyAnxietyLinguisticsCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social emotional skills are foundational competencies upon which children draw throughout their lives. This work investigates current, commercially available experiences for social emotional learning (SEL) through conversational agents (CAs). Specifically, we reviewed 3,767 Skills available in the "Kids" category of the Alexa Skills Marketplace and found 42 working Skills with connections to SEL. We found that the most common scenarios these Skills sought to support were: active listening, emotional wellbeing, conversation with other people, and politeness. The interaction patterns used by these Skills distilled into a taxonomy of styles we labeled: The Delegator, The Lecturer, The Bulldozer, and The One-Track Mind. We found that, collectively, these Skills provide shallow experiences and lack contingent feedback. To examine the gap between current offerings and families' needs, we also conducted 26 interviews with parents to probe parents' ideas about CAs supporting children's SEL. Parents see potential for CAs to support children in four concrete ways, including attuning to others, cultivating curiosity, reinforcing politeness, and developing emotional awareness. Despite their optimism about these opportunities, parents expressed skepticism about CAs' impoverished conversational abilities and worry about CAs advancing values and behavioral norms that are at odds with their own.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous TechnologiesSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207