MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399667901 · doi:10.1145/3628516.3655802

"Bee and I need diversity!" Break Filter Bubbles in Recommendation Systems through Embodied AI Learning

2024· article· en· W4399667901 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaofei Zhou, Yushan Zhou, Yunfan Gong, Zhenyao Cai, Annie Qiu, Qinqin Xiao, Alissa N. Antle, Zhen Bai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRecommender Systems and Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversitas Brawijaya
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionDiversity (politics)Computer scienceFilter (signal processing)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer visionSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AI recommendations influence our daily decisions. The convenience of navigating personalized content goes hand-in-hand with the notorious filter bubble effect, which may decrease people’s exposure to diverse options and opinions. Children are especially vulnerable to this due to their limited AI literacy and critical thinking skills. In this study, we propose a novel Augmented Reality (AR) application BeeTrap. It aims to not only raise children’s awareness of filter bubbles but also empower them to mitigate this ethical issue through sense-making of AI recommendation systems’ inner workings. By having children experience and break filter bubbles in a flower recommendation system, BeeTrap utilizes embodied metaphors (e.g., NEAR-FAR, ITERATION) and analogies (bee pollination) to bridge abstract AI concepts with sensory-motor experiences in familiar STEM contexts. To evaluate our design’s effectiveness and accessibility for a broad range of children, we introduced BeeTrap in a four-day summer camp for middle-school students from underrepresented backgrounds in STEM. Results from pre- and post-tests and interviews show that BeeTrap developed students’ technical understanding of AI recommendations, empowered them to break filter bubbles, and helped them foster new personal and societal perspectives around AI technologies.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRecommender Systems and TechniquesFrench-language works237,207