How Do We Perceive Our Trainee Robots? Exploring the Impact of Robot Errors and Appearance When Performing Domestic Physical Tasks on Teachers’ Trust and Evaluations
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
To be successful, robots that can learn new tasks from humans should interact effectively with them while being trained, and humans should be able to trust the robots’ abilities after teaching. Typically, when human learners make mistakes, their teachers tolerate those errors, especially when students exhibit acceptable progress overall. But how do errors and appearance of a trainee robot affect human teachers’ trust while the robot is generally improving in performing a task? First, an online survey with 173 participants investigated perceived severity of robot errors in performing a cooking task. These findings were then used in an interactive online experiment with 138 participants, in which the participants were able to remotely teach their food preparation preferences to trainee robots with two different appearances. Compared with an untidy-looking robot, a tidy-looking robot was rated as more professional, without impacting participants’ trust. Furthermore, while larger errors at the end of iterative training had a greater impact, even a small error could significantly reduce trust in a trainee robot performing the domestic physical task of food preparation, regardless of the robot’s appearance. The present study extends human–robot interaction knowledge about teachers’ perception of trainee robots, particularly when teachers observe them accomplishing domestic physical tasks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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