COVIDware: Designing Interactive Everyday Things as Tangible Homeware for Social Isolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes our collaborative journey of creating everyday interactive artefacts to help us think, reflect, and live through self-isolation. Through a co-design approach, we designed interactive homeware objects (that we collectively refer to as ‘COVIDware’) to address the challenges of isolation during the pandemic. Five artefacts were developed by self-isolated designers as interactive art installations. We discuss how each creator reflected on her design concept, process, and encounter through concepts of critical making, speculation, and engagement via in-the-isolated-wild deployments. By empowering early researchers/enthusiasts to design ‘with’ smart-materials, and off-the-shelf items, we reflect on how these homey interfaces can enhance people’s wellbeing beyond screen-based interactions. Despite not collaborating in the making process, our findings from the designer’s making process show how all the designed artefacts shared attributes of biophilic design, imperfection, and unconventional interactions with the overarching goal of promoting wellbeing, and meaningful connection with nature, self, and others.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".