Less Than Human: How Different Users of Telepresence Robots Expect Different Social Norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does the norm of first-come-first-serve (FCFS) equally apply to those piloting a Mobile Remote Presence (MRP) system as to those who are physically present with it? While telepresence robots could make social interactions more accessible and enjoyable for geographically-constrained individuals, such an outcome requires both pilots and local users of MRPs to share the same social norm expectations that govern their use. To address this question, we conducted an online study$(N=903)$involving simulated human-MRP interaction scenarios. Our results suggest that those remotely piloting the MRP-rather than local users-assign the robot to a lower social priority; they find it more appropriate when local users ignore queue order than when pilots ignore queue order. Furthermore, we provide significant empirical evidence that local users expect different social norms to be upheld depending on how they perceive the robot. Those who perceive MRPs simply as robots-rather than an extension of a person-do not expect the FCFS norm to be respected for MRPs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".