MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415281715 · doi:10.1145/3772070

“Take Nothing on Its Look”: Revealing Users’ Expectations and Experiences in Social Human–Robot Interaction

2025· article· en· W4415281715 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Lindblom, Julia Rosén, Maurice Lamb, Erik Billing

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSocial Robot Interaction and HRI
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivitySocial relationExperiential learningThematic analysisQualitative researchNothingSocial robotHuman–robot interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of social robots in many sectors of society is predicted to progressively increase. Therefore, exploring how expectations play a role in and change users’ experiences when interacting with these robots over time is necessary. From an interpretative and insight-driven approach, our aim was to explore how humans experience in-person interactions with the social robot Pepper, which was equipped with the OpenAI GPT-3 language model. Qualitative data from 62 video recordings of the interactions with Pepper and post-test interviews were collected from 31 participants. An experiential reflexive thematic analysis was applied. The main findings include various levels of interaction quality, different interaction strategies, and elements influencing the users’ expectations and experiences, which were synthesized into a coherent framework. It appears that the participants adapted their interaction strategies based on their expectations and the perceived capability of the robot, which influenced their experiences. This reveals that positive user experience is not solely determined by interaction quality, showing the interplay among these aspects when interacting with a social robot. To conclude, our findings underscore the intricate nature of the role of user expectations and experiences in social human–robot interaction. The work adds complementary qualitative approaches to the Human–Robot Interaction community to provide additional insights on interacting with social robots.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Human-Robot InteractionSame topicSocial Robot Interaction and HRIFrench-language works237,207