MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7055816093

Defining the Voice of Montreal: Exploring Possibilities for Human-Machine Companionship

2020· other· en· W7055816093 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPosthumanReflexivityPosthumanismRelevance (law)Product (mathematics)Process (computing)Interpersonal relationshipPerspective (graphical)Order (exchange)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis explores the possibility for (re)defining the relationship between humans and robots with conversational interfaces. It does so by looking at the creation process of a voice and text-based virtual assistant for tourists from the perspective of critical posthumanism and posthuman performativity. In a reflexive fashion, I analyze my involvement in a tech start-up, in order to argue that, rather than being ontologically separated, the boundaries between humans and machines are culturally and historically constructed. Moreover, through a closer look at the development of my own relationship with the prototype of the voicebot and my performance of ‘demos’ among uninitiated users, I put forward a relational understanding of how humans and machines become with - and constantly remake - each other. This allows me to redefine our relationship with intelligent artefacts beyond mere instrumentality, towards a form of human-machine companionship that highlights the potential of the relationship. Finally, through a practical engagement with the idea of posthuman responsibility, I analyse the effects of specific features of the voicebot and imagine how the boundaries between human and machines can be re-configured in a more responsible way. Amongst other things, this allows us to re-contextualize labor relations associated with service work and product development, with respects to how these practices shape gender and race. The thesis concludes by stating the relevance of these results for the fields of tourism and product development.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207