MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396832512 · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642435

GlucoMaker: Enabling Collaborative Customization of Glucose Monitors

2024· article· en· W4396832512 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Lakhdhir, Chehak Nayar, Fraser Anderson, Hélène Fournier, Liisa Holsti, Irina Kondratova, Charles Périn, Sowmya Somanath

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaNational Research Council CanadaAutodesk (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationComputer scienceFunction (biology)Human–computer interactionSpace (punctuation)Focus (optics)World Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Millions of individuals with diabetes use glucose monitors to track blood sugar levels. Research shows that such individuals seek to customize different aspects of their interactions with these devices, including how they engage with, decorate, and wear them. However, it remains challenging to tailor both device form and function to accommodate individual needs. To address this challenge, we introduce GlucoMaker, a system for collaboratively customizing physical design aspects of glucose monitors. Prior to designing GlucoMaker, we conducted a prototyping and focus group study to understand customization preferences and collaboration benefits. GlucoMaker provides individuals with the ability to a) select monitor form and function preferences, b) alter predefined and downloadable digital model files, c) receive feedback on monitor designs from stakeholders, and d) learn technical design aspects. We further demonstrate the versatility and design space of GlucoMaker with three examples of different form and function use cases.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207