MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

4th Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in HRI Workshop

2025· article· en· W4410297952 on OpenAlexaff
Sindhu Ravindranath, Ana Tanevska, Shruti Chandra, Raj Korpan, Amy Eguchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEmployer Branding and e-HRM
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Diversity (politics)Inclusion (mineral)Computer sciencePsychologySociologyPolitical scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is crucial to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the development of AI and robotics. Neglecting these factors not only exacerbates existing discrimination and biases, but also continues perpetuating them over time. Despite global awareness, urgent action is needed within the human-robot interaction (HRI) community. This workshop aims to bridge the gap by providing a platform for sharing experiences and research insights related to identifying, addressing, and integrating DEI principles in HRI. Building upon its last few iterations, this year's workshop will actively involve participants in tackling human biases which can be transferred to the robots, aiming to mitigate inequity, recognize and minimize prejudice, and promote inclusion within the field of HRI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.038
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmployer Branding and e-HRMFrench-language works237,207