The development of the affective value in the entertaining interaction Stéphanie Cardoso; Candidate in Ph.D. Arts, History, Theories and Practices, speciality Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The companionship robots are they susceptible to bring an affective look? The term robot comes from the Czech robota mean slave/work, thus to introduce the concept of companionship at the robot, would thus return to the friendly design of the robot at Rossum ' S father in the play, the R.U.R. (Capek, 1920). It is then a question of meaning the sensitive relations between the man and the robot of companionship. This study aims questioning general public facing robot Aibo dog, and at raising its first feelings-let us recall for this matter that the 1st "friendly robot " was the hero of the animated series, Testuwan Atum, or Astro Boy, (Osamu Tezuka, 1952)-. In this way the designer of Aibo’s software questioned themselves rightly “will like we AIBO as we like Mickey? (Kaplan, 2001) ” This questioning brings to check if the feeling of attachment can be corollary with the function of entertainment, directly resulting from an amusing presence. The objective of the experimentation carried out in May 2006 to the Sciences ’ Center of Montreal then consists in releasing from the formal and relational properties of an affective nature usable again in the design of a new object species, the sensory assistants filling our emotional lacks.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".