MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366596349 · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581346

Creepy Assistant: Development and Validation of a Scale to Measure the Perceived Creepiness of Voice Assistants

2023· article· en· W4366596349 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Variety (cybernetics)Computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Human–computer interactionMultimediaArtificial intelligenceDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voice assistants have afforded users rich interaction opportunities to access information and issue commands in a variety of contexts. However, some users feel uneasy or creeped out by voice assistants, leading to a decreased desire to use them. As there has yet to be a comprehensive understanding of the factors that cause users to perceive voice assistants as being creepy, this research developed an empirical scale to measure the creepiness inherent in various voice assistants. Utilizing prior scale creation methodologies, a 7-item Perceived Creepiness of Voice Assistants Scale (PCAS) was created and validated. The scale measures how creepy a new voice assistant would be for users of voice assistants. The scale was developed to ensure that researchers and designers can evaluate the next generation of voice assistants before such voice assistants are released to the wider public.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207