AniBalloons: Animated chat balloons as affective augmentation for social messaging and chatbot interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being prominent and ubiquitous, message-based communication is limited in nonverbally conveying emotions. Besides emoticons or stickers, messaging users continue seeking richer options for affective communication. Recent research explored using chat-balloons’ shape and color to communicate emotional states . However, little work explored whether and how chat-balloon animations could be designed to convey emotions. We present the design of AniBalloons, 30 chat-balloon animations conveying Joy, Anger, Sadness, Surprise, Fear, and Calmness. Using AniBalloons as a research means, we conducted three studies to assess the animations’ affect recognizability and emotional properties ( N = 40 ), and probe how animated chat-balloons would influence communication experience in typical scenarios including instant messaging ( N = 72 ) and chatbot service ( N = 70 ). Our exploration contributes a set of chat-balloon animations to complement nonverbal affective communication for a range of text-message interfaces, and empirical insights into how animated chat-balloons might mediate particular conversation experiences (e.g., perceived interpersonal closeness, or chatbot personality).
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".