Introduction to the Special Issue on Human-Computer Interaction in the Web 2.0 Era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Web 2.0, the "dynamic web," is one of the most effective applications to date of information and communication technologies in the way it revolutionized how individuals interact with information.The term Web 2.0 is largely associated with Tim O'Reilley (Graham, 2005; O'Reilley, 2005), and is a loosely defined concept that represents a variety of technologies.Some of these are development platforms while others are applications used mostly for social computing and interaction.The latter group of technologies, also known as the Social Web (Rheingold, 2000) has arguably been in the core of the World Wide Web from its conception (Porter, 2008).Moreover, the developmental components of Web 2.0 that moved computing beyond desktops via the use of web-based "building blocks" such as web services not only made it possible to realize the true potential of the social web, but to a large extent made it synonymous with Web 2.0.Our use of the term Web 2.0 also treats it as identical to the social web.As such, Web 2.0 is omnipresent in virtually every aspect of our lives from social networking to viral marketing to political campaigning.Masses, who to a large extent used to be mere consumers of content generated by relatively few "authorities," are now in a position to be "content providers."This means a sizeable portion of content in circulation today is generated by "novices" either in the domain of that content or the technology used in its generation and dissemination.This, by itself, made inevitable a paradigm shift in the interaction of users with information technology.Another radical change has been in the way people consume user-generated content and communicate with the "creators" or other users of that content.We issued the call for papers for this special issue in 2010 based on our observation of this strong trend in the development, adoption, and use of Web 2.0 applications, and the relative scarcity of research on Web 2.0 from a Human Computer Interaction (HCI) viewpoint.There are many elements that influence the interaction of people with Web 2.0 applications.In our call for papers, we noted: "It is presumable that with better identification of users, their motivations, and interaction needs, user experience with Web 2.0 will be substantially improved."We also highlighted the "any time any place" nature of HCI in the era of Web 2.0 as many users interact with Web 2.0 applications using mobile devices, thus enabling near real-time information sharing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.101 | 0.057 |
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".