Evaluating people's perceptions of an agent as a public speaking coach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of interactive tools, such as voice assistants and social robots, holds promise as coaching aids during public speaking rehearsals. To create a coach that is both effective and likable, it is important to understand how people perceive these agents when they observe them during actual presentation sessions. Specifically, it is important to assess people’s perceptions of the agents’ physical embodiment and nonverbal social behaviour, taking into account both listening and feedback periods. To this end, we conducted an online study with 168 participants who watched videos of agents acting as public speaking coaches. The study had three conditions: two with a humanoid social robot in either (1) active listening mode, using nonverbal backchannelling, (2) passive listening mode, and (3) a voice assistant agent. The results showed that the social robot in both conditions was perceived more positively in terms of its human-like attributes, and likability than the voice assistant agent. The active listener robot was perceived as more satisfying, more engaging, more natural, and warmer than the voice assistant agent, but this difference was not seen between the passive listener robot and the voice assistant agent. Additionally, the active listener robot was found to be more natural than the passive listening robot. However, there were no significant differences in perceived intelligence, competence, discomfort, and helpfulness between the three agents. Finally, participants’ gender and personality traits were found to affect their evaluations of the agents. The study offered insights into general attitudes towards using social robots and voice assistants as public speaking coaches, which can guide the future design and use of these agents as coaches.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it