MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394979938 · doi:10.1145/3658666

Qualitative Approaches to Voice UX

2024· review· en· W4394979938 on OpenAlex
Katie Seaborn, Jacqueline Urakami, Peter Pennefather, Norihisa Miyake

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

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsComputer scienceRigourQualitative researchHuman–computer interactionPraxisDiversity (politics)Natural (archaeology)User experience designMultimediaData scienceSociologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voice is a natural mode of expression offered by modern computer-based systems. Qualitative perspectives on voice-based user experiences (voice UX) offer rich descriptions of complex interactions that numbers alone cannot fully represent. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on qualitative approaches to voice UX, capturing the nature of this body of work in a systematic map and offering a qualitative synthesis of findings. We highlight the benefits of qualitative methods for voice UX research, identify opportunities for increasing rigour in methods and outcomes, and distill patterns of experience across a diversity of devices and modes of qualitative praxis.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.008

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 head0.502
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.029 · 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