MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366968117 · doi:10.1145/3544793.3560362

What Can You Do For Me? The Discoverability of Intelligent Assistant Skills

2022· article· en· W4366968117 on OpenAlex
Manveer Kalirai, Anastasia Kuzminykh

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
KeywordsDiscoverabilityLeverage (statistics)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceInternet privacyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide discrepancy exists between the range of available Intelligent Personal Assistant (IPA) skills and the range of skills users engage with regularly. One reason for this is the issue of low skill discoverability. From the literature, we understand that there are factors that can potentially enhance discoverability, such as context of use. The literature also signals that current discoverability strategies, which leverage such factors, are being challenged by users’ privacy concerns, and rapid skill growth. Mindful of these challenges, we explore the ways users naturally group IPA skills as a possible springboard for discoverability. Our preliminary findings suggest that grouping skills based on users’ functionality needs in different areas of life may be a viable direction toward advancing discoverability.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207