CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining Parent Versus Child Reviews of Parental Control Apps on Google Play

Alelyani, Turki, Ghosh, Arup Kumar, Moralez, Larry, Guha, Shion, Wisniewski, Pamela·2019·Lecture Notes in Computer Science
DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-21905-5_1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-030-21905-5_1

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Blackwell, L., Gardiner, E., Schoenebeck, S.: Managing expectations: technology tensions among parents and teens. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 1390–1401. ACM, New York (2016a) · DOI
  2. Boyd, D.: It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press, New Haven (2014)
  3. Baumrind, D.: A developmental perspective on adolescent risk taking in contemporary America. In: New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, pp. 93–125 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219873706 · DOI
  4. Ghosh, A.K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Guha, S., LaViola Jr., J., Wisniewski, P.: Safety vs. surveillance: what children have to say about mobile apps for parental control. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York (2018) · DOI · Paper page
  5. Ashktorab, Z., Vitak, J.: Designing cyberbullying mitigation and prevention solutions through participatory design with teenagers. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3895–3905. ACM, New York (2016) · DOI
  6. Wisniewski, P., et al.: Resilience mitigates the negative effects of adolescent internet addiction and online risk exposure. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4029–4038. ACM, New York (2015) · DOI
  7. Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Rosson, M.B., Perkins, D.F., Carroll, J.M.: Dear diary: teens reflect on their weekly online risk experiences. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3919–3930. ACM, New York (2016) · DOI
  8. Yardi, S., Bruckman, A.: Social and technical challenges in parenting teens’ social media use. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3237–3246. ACM, New York (2011) · DOI
  9. Yardi, S., Bruckman, A.: Income, race, and class: exploring socioeconomic differences in family technology use. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3041–3050. ACM, New York (2012) · DOI
  10. Hiniker, A., Schoenebeck, S.Y., Kientz, J.A.: Not at the dinner table: parents’ and children’s perspectives on family technology rules. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 1376–1389. ACM, New York (2016) · DOI
  11. Cranor, L.F., Durity, A.L., Marsh, A., Ur, B.: Parents’ and teens’ perspectives on privacy in a technology-filled world. In: Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security. USENIX, Menlo Park (2014)
  12. Livingstone, S.: Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy, and self-expression. New Media Soc. 10, 393–411 (2008) · DOI · Paper page
  13. Petronio, S.S.: Boundaries of Privacy: Dialects of Disclosure. SUNY Press (2002) · DOI · Paper page
  14. Czeskis, A., et al.: Parenting from the pocket: value tensions and technical directions for secure and private parent-teen mobile safety. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 15:1–15:15. ACM, New York (2010) · DOI
  15. Ghosh, A.K., Badillo-Urquiola, K., Rosson, M.B., Xu, H., Carroll, J., Wisniewski, P.: A matter of control or safety? Examining parental use of technical monitoring apps on teens’ mobile devices. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New York (2018) · DOI
  16. Amato, G., Bolettieri, P., Costa, G., Torre, F., Martinelli, F.: Detection of images with adult content for parental control on mobile devices? In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Mobile Technology, Application & Systems, pp. 35:1–35:5. ACM, New York (2009) · DOI
  17. Ko, M., Choi, S., Yang, S., Lee, J., Lee, U.: FamiLync: facilitating participatory parental mediation of adolescents’ smartphone use. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 867–878. ACM, New York (2015) · DOI
  18. Kim, S., Zhang, J., Chen, Z., Oh, A., Liu, S.: A hierarchical aspect-sentiment model for online reviews. In: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 526–533. AAAI Press, Bellevue (2013) · DOI
  19. Mason, R., et al.: Microsummarization of online reviews: an experimental study. In: Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3015–3021. AAAI Press, Phoenix (2016) · DOI
  20. Wang, J., Zhao, W.X., He, Y., Li, X.: Leveraging product adopter information from online reviews for product recommendation. In: Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. AAAI Publications (2015)
  21. Ida, Y., Nakamura, T., Matsumoto, T.: Domain-dependent/independent topic switching model for online reviews with numerical ratings. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, pp. 229–238. ACM, New York (2013) · DOI
  22. Zhao, W.X., Wang, J., He, Y., Wen, J.-R., Chang, E.Y., Li, X.: Mining product adopter information from online reviews for improving product recommendation. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data. 10, 29:1–29:23 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2842629 · DOI
  23. Moghaddam, S., Jamali, M., Ester, M.: Review recommendation: personalized prediction of the quality of online reviews. In: Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 2249–2252. ACM, New York (2011) · DOI
  24. Jawecki, G., Fuller, J.: How to use the innovative potential of online communities? Netnography – an unobtrusive research method to absorb the knowledge and creativity of online communities. Int. J. Bus. Process Integr. Manage. 3, 248–255 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPIM.2008.024982 · DOI
  25. Korfiatis, N., García-Bariocanal, E., Sánchez-Alonso, S.: Evaluating content quality and helpfulness of online product reviews: the interplay of review helpfulness vs review content. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 11, 205–217 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.003 · DOI
  26. Vasa, R., Hoon, L., Mouzakis, K., Noguchi, A.: A preliminary analysis of mobile app user reviews. In: Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, pp. 241–244. ACM, New York (2012) · DOI
  27. Duan, W., Gu, B., Whinston, A.B.: Do online reviews matter?—an empirical investigation of panel data. Decis. Support Syst. 45, 1007–1016 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001 · DOI
  28. Epstein, D.A., et al.: Examining menstrual tracking to inform the design of personal informatics tools. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 6876–6888. ACM, New York (2017) · DOI · Paper page
  29. Fu, B., Lin, J., Li, L., Faloutsos, C., Hong, J., Sadeh, N.: Why people hate your app: making sense of user feedback in a mobile app store. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1276–1284. ACM, New York (2013) · DOI
  30. Guyon, I., Elisseeff, A.: An introduction to feature extraction. In: Guyon, I., Nikravesh, M., Gunn, S., Zadeh, L.A. (eds.) Feature Extraction, pp. 1–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-35488-8_1 · DOI
  31. Guha, S., Baumer, E.P.S., Gay, G.K.: Regrets, I’ve had a few: when regretful experiences do (and don’t) compel users to leave Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork, pp. 166–177. ACM, New York (2018) · DOI
  32. Muller, M., Guha, S., Baumer, E.P.S., Mimno, D., Shami, N.S.: Machine learning and grounded theory method: convergence, divergence, and combination. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 3–8. ACM, New York (2016) · DOI
  33. Baumer, E.P.S., Mimno, D., Guha, S., Quan, E., Gay, G.K.: Comparing grounded theory and topic modeling: extreme divergence or unlikely convergence? J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 1397–1410 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23786 · DOI
  34. Alelyani, T., Mao, K., Yang, Y.: Context-centric pricing: early pricing models for software crowdsourcing tasks. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Predictive Models and Data Analytics in Software Engineering, pp. 63–72. ACM, New York (2017) · DOI
  35. Friedman, J.H.: On bias, variance, 0/1—loss, and the curse-of-dimensionality. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 1, 55–77 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009778005914 · DOI
  36. Friedman, N., Geiger, D., Goldszmidt, M.: Bayesian network classifiers. Mach. Learn. 29, 131–163 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007465528199 · DOI · Paper page
  37. Ciurumelea, A., Schaufelbühl, A., Panichella, S., Gall, H.C.: Analyzing reviews and code of mobile apps for better release planning. In: 2017 IEEE 24th International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering (SANER), pp. 91–102 (2017) · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Alelyani, T., Ghosh, A. K., Moralez, L., Guha, S., & Wisniewski, P.
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published
2019
Pages
3-21
ISSN
  • 0302-9743
  • 1611-3349
DOI
10.1007/978-3-030-21905-5_1
Cited by
17
References
3
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review