HCI for Climate Change: Imagining Sustainable Futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the climate crisis is turning into one of the most critical issues of our time, HCI researchers keep reflecting on the role their work can play in reducing the impact of adverse environmental changes. Suggestions have been made to expand Sustainable HCI (SHCI)’s intervention area to policy design to have a larger impact, consider non-human actors’ perspective to incorporate the value of biodiversity, develop multidisciplinary competencies and work across disciplines to understand climate change, and finally make it understandable to citizens and pave the way for their action. This workshop calls to discuss the different angles from which the problem of climate change has been addressed by the CHI community so far. We believe these different angles have several contact points, and the convergence of these different perspectives would help HCI researchers better imagine sustainable futures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".