CUI@CHI 2024: Building Trust in CUIs—From Design to Deployment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conversational user interfaces (CUIs) have become an everyday technology for people the world over, as well as a booming area of research. Advances in voice synthesis and the emergence of chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs), notably ChatGPT, have pushed CUIs to the forefront of human-computer interaction (HCI) research and practice. Now that these technologies enable an elemental level of usability and user experience (UX), we must turn our attention to higher-order human factors: trust and reliance. In this workshop, we aim to bring together a multidisciplinary group of researchers and practitioners invested in the next phase of CUI design. Through keynotes, presentations, and breakout sessions, we will share our knowledge, identify cutting-edge resources, and fortify an international network of CUI scholars. In particular, we will engage with the complexity of trust and reliance as attitudes and behaviours that emerge when people interact with conversational agents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".