Exploring a Real-time Feedback Display of Non-verbal Cues in Online Work Meetings to Support Self-Presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expressing oneself appropriately in online meetings through non-verbal cues can be challenging for knowledge workers. Automatic non-verbal cue detection technologies have the potential to support workers' self-presentation efforts through real-time feedback, but little is known about workers' reactions to and the implications of doing so. We designed and implemented Novecs as a technology probe of a real-time feedback display that automatically detects and signals users' own non-verbal cues -- smiling, nodding, gaze, and posture. Novecs was deployed in an exploratory field study (n=18) to support knowledge workers' self-presentation in their everyday meetings. Post-study interviews reveal how Novecs' real-time feedback helped increase in-the-moment self-awareness, and how neutrally-framed feedback may help navigate tensions between authentic and in-authentic self-presentation. Participants also emphasized the need for natural timing when adjusting non-verbal cues in-meeting. We discuss design opportunities and challenges of real-time, non-verbal cue feedback systems, such as personalizing feedback based on different meeting types.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".