Enhancing Self-Reflection with Wearable Sensors Workshop
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
On 23rd September 2014 the authors organised a workshop on self-reflection tools and wearable sensors as part of the ACM MobileHCI 2014 Conference in Toronto, Canada. The aim of the workshop was to bring together professionals from different backgrounds to discuss the current adoption of such methodological tools, their challenges and future trends. Examples of own individuals' work were presented where such methodologies had been employed. Hands-on activities enabled us to fine- tune our understanding of those methodologies and unpack new potentials regarding their advantages and limitations. The workshop argued that the potential synthesis of such methodologies in collecting data will contribute to a new form of ‘Big Data on-the-go' while introducing ethical, control and management challenges. The workshop revealed interesting opportunities arising from the synergies of sensors and reflection tools with a wide range of applications. Finally, the workshop offered opportunities for experimenting with sensors and reflection tools on site.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it