Beyond Academic Publication: Alternative Outcomes of HCI Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the HCI community, there is more openness and interest toward different forms of research outcomes beyond written academic publications. These include pictorial papers, video/audio documentaries, public exhibitions, posters and brochures, design fiction, comics, podcasts and many more. These alternative research outcomes play a critical role in explaining, disseminating, and translating valuable insights and knowledge from HCI research to people outside academic communities. We propose this workshop to initiate the conversation among researchers in the DIS community in generating alternative forms of research outcomes. What inspirations, motivations and critical factors influence the creation of alternative research outcomes? Who is the main audience, and what are the barriers and limitations of making them? The outcome of the workshop will be an enhanced understanding related to how HCI knowledge can be translated to or created for different audiences outside of academia, and a guide for HCI researchers towards creating alternate research outcomes.
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 | 0.303 | 0.390 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.060 | 0.055 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier 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".