CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Data Visualization and AnalyticsInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Troubling Collaboration: Matters of Care for Visualization Design Study

Open access
Akbaba, Derya, Lange, Devin, Correll, Michael, Lex, Alexander, Meyer, Miriah·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3544548.3581168

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A common research process in visualization is for visualization researchers to collaborate with domain experts to solve particular applied data problems. While there is existing guidance and expertise around how to structure collaborations to strengthen research contributions, there is comparatively little guidance on how to navigate the implications of, and power produced through the socio-technical entanglements of collaborations. In this paper, we qualitatively analyze reflective interviews of past participants of collaborations from multiple perspectives: visualization graduate students, visualization professors, and domain collaborators. We juxtapose the perspectives of these individuals, revealing tensions about the tools that are built and the relationships that are formed — a complex web of competing motivations. Through the lens of matters of care, we interpret this web, concluding with considerations that both trouble and necessitate reformation of current patterns around collaborative work in visualization design studies to promote more equitable, useful, and care-ful outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3544548.3581168

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Maintenance is typically invisible labor [1] that rarely garners the attention that new feature work does, but may offer a marketing-style signal that the library is actively maintained.

    “Maintenance is typically invisible labor [1] that rarely garners the attention that new feature work does, but may offer a marketing-style signal that the library is actively maintained.”

    From Considering Visualization Example Galleries (2024) · cites this paper as [1]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Karen S. Baker and Helena Karasti. 2018. Data Care and Its Politics: Designing for Local Collective Data Management as a Neglected Thing. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers -Volume 1 (Hasselt and Genk, Belgium) (PDC '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 10, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210587 · DOI
  2. Madeline Balaam, Rob Comber, Rachel E. Clarke, Charles Windlin, Anna Ståhl, Kristina Höök, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2019. Emotion Work in Experience- Centered Design. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300832 · DOI
  3. Karen Barad. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press.
  4. Karen Barad. 2014. Difracting Difraction: Cutting Together-Apart. Parallax 20, 3 (2014), 168-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623 · DOI
  5. Eric P. S. Baumer, Mahmood Jasim, Ali Sarvghad, and Narges Mah- yar. 2022. Of Course it's Political! A Critical Inquiry into Un- deremphasized Dimensions in Civic Text Visualization. Computer Graphics Forum 41, 3 (2022), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14518 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.14518 · DOI
  6. Cynthia L. Bennett and Daniela K. Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the "Other". In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300528 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Patricia Hill Collins. 1990. Black feminist thought in the matrix of domination. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment 138, 1990 (1990), 221-238.
  8. Michael Correll. 2020. What Do We Actually Learn from Evaluations in the "Heroic Era" of Visualization? : Position Paper. In 2020 IEEE Workshop on Evalu- ation and Beyond -Methodological Approaches to Visualization (BELIV). 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1109/BELIV51497.2020.00013 · DOI
  9. Anamaria Crisan, Jennifer L. Gardy, and Tamara Munzner. 2016. On regulatory and organizational constraints in visualization design and evaluation. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. 24-October (2016), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993901. 2993911 arXiv:1610.10056 · DOI
  10. Catherine D'ignazio and Lauren F Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT press.
  11. Marian Dörk, Patrick Feng, Christopher Collins, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2013. Critical InfoVis: Exploring the Politics of Visualization. In CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI EA '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2189-2198. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2468356.2468739 · DOI
  12. Johanna Drucker. 2021. Sustainability and complexity: Knowledge and authority in the digital humanities. Digit. Scholarsh. Humanit. 36, Supplement_2 (nov 2021), ii86-ii94. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab025 · DOI
  13. F. Ehmel, V. Brüggemann, and M Dörk. 2021. Topography of Violence: Consider- ations for Ethical and Collaborative Visualization Design. Comput. Graph. Forum 40, 3 (2021), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.14285 · DOI
  14. Jean-Daniel Fekete, Jarke J. van Wijk, John T. Stasko, and Chris North. 2008. The Value of Information Visualization. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70956-5_1 · DOI
  15. Danyel Fisher and Miriah Meyer. 2017. Making data visual: a practical guide to using visualization for insight. " O'Reilly Media, Inc. ".
  16. Carol Gilligan. 1977. In a diferent voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard educational review 47, 4 (1977), 481-517.
  17. Carol Gilligan. 1993. In a diferent voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Harvard University Press.
  18. Hua Guo, Steven R. Gomez, Caroline Ziemkiewicz, and David H. Laidlaw. 2016. A Case Study Using Visualization Interaction Logs and Insight Metrics to Un- derstand How Analysts Arrive at Insights. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2016), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015. 2467613 · DOI
  19. Kyle Wm. Hall, Adam J. Bradley, Uta Hinrichs, Samuel Huron, Jo Wood, Christo- pher Collins, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2020. Design by Immersion: A Trans- disciplinary Approach to Problem-Driven Visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 109-118. https://doi.org/10. 1109/TVCG.2019.2934790 · DOI
  20. Donna J Haraway. 2016. Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press.
  21. Steven Houben, Connie Golsteijn, Sarah Gallacher, Rose Johnson, Saskia Bakker, Nicolai Marquardt, Licia Capra, and Yvonne Rogers. 2016. Physikit: Data En- gagement Through Physical Ambient Visualizations in the Home. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1608-1619. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858059 · DOI
  22. Samuel Huron, Pauline Gourlet, Uta Hinrichs, Trevor Hogan, and Yvonne Jansen. 2017. Let's Get Physical: Promoting Data Physicalization in Workshop Formats. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (DIS '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1409-1422. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064798 · DOI
  23. Benjamin Karer, Hans Hagen, and Dirk J. Lehmann. 2021. Insight Beyond Numbers: The Impact of Qualitative Factors on Visual Data Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 27, 2 (2021), 1011-1021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030376 · DOI
  24. Helen Kennedy, Rosemary Lucy Hill, Giorgia Aiello, and William Allen. 2016. The work that visualisation conventions do. Information, Communication & Society 19, 6 (2016), 715-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1153126 · DOI
  25. E. Kerzner, A. Lex, C.L. Sigulinsky, T. Urness, B.W. Jones, R.E. Marc, and M. Meyer. 2017. Grafnity: Visualizing Connectivity in Large Graphs. Com- puter Graphics Forum 36, 3 (2017), 251-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13184 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.13184 · DOI
  26. Cayla Key, Fiona Browne, Nick Taylor, and Jon Rogers. 2021. Proceed with Care: Reimagining Home IoT Through a Care Perspective. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445602 · DOI
  27. Max Krüger, Anne Weibert, Débora de Castro Leal, Dave Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2021. It takes more than one hand to clap: On the role of 'care' in maintaining design results. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. -Proc. (2021). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3411764.3445389 · DOI
  28. Amanda Lazar, Ben Jelen, Alisha Pradhan, and Katie A. Siek. 2021. Adopting Difractive Reading to Advance HCI Research: A Case Study on Technology for Aging. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 28, 5, Article 32 (aug 2021), 29 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3462326 · DOI
  29. Crystal Lee, Tanya Yang, Gabrielle D Inchoco, Graham M. Jones, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2021. Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Ortho- dox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 607, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445211 · DOI
  30. Alexander Lex, Nils Gehlenborg, Hendrik Strobelt, Romain Vuillemot, and Hanspeter Pfster. 2014. UpSet: Visualization of Intersecting Sets. IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 1983-1992. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2014.2346248 · DOI
  31. Ann Light and Yoko Akama. 2014. Structuring Future Social Relations: The Politics of Care in Participatory Practice. In Proceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference on Research Papers -PDC '14. ACM Press, Windhoek, Namibia, 151-160. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661435.2661438 · DOI
  32. Alan Lundgard, Crystal Lee, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2019. Sociotechnical Considerations for Accessible Visualization Design. In 2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS). 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.2019.8933762 · DOI
  33. Giorgia Lupi. 2017. Data humanism: the revolutionary future of data visualization. Print Magazine 30, 3 (2017).
  34. Aryn Martin, Natasha Myers, and Ana Viseu. 2015. The politics of care in technoscience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 45, 5 (2015), 625-641. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0306312715602073 · DOI
  35. Nina McCurdy, Jason Dykes, and Miriah Meyer. 2016. Action design research and visualization design. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. 24-October (2016), 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993901.2993916 · DOI
  36. Sean McKenna, Dominika Mazur, James Agutter, and Miriah Meyer. 2014. Design Activity Framework for Visualization Design. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 20, 12 (2014), 2191-2200. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG. 2014.2346331 · DOI
  37. Miriah Meyer and Jason Dykes. 2019. Criteria for Rigor in Visualization Design Study. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 26, 1 (2019), 1-1. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2019.2934539 arXiv:1907.08495 · DOI
  38. Miriah Meyer, Michael Sedlmair, P Samuel Quinan, and Tamara Munzner. 2015. The nested blocks and guidelines model. Information Visualization 14, 3 (2015), 234-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473871613510429 · DOI
  39. Javier Monforte and Joan Úbeda-Colomer. 2021. Tinkering with the two-to-one interview: Refections on the use of two interviewers in qualitative construc- tionist inquiry. Methods Psychol. 5 (oct 2021), 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. metip.2021.100082 · DOI
  40. Jimmy Moore, Pascal Gofn, Jason Wiese, and Miriah Meyer. 2022. An Interview Method for Engaging Personal Data. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiqui- tous Technol. 5, 4, Article 173 (dec 2022), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494964 · DOI
  41. Tamara Munzner. 2009. A Nested Model for Visualization Design and Validation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 15, 6 (2009), 921-928. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2009.111 · DOI
  42. Michelle Murphy. 2015. Unsettling care: Troubling transnational itineraries of care in feminist health practices. Social Studies of Science 45, 5 (2015), 717-737. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715589136 · DOI
  43. Giovanna Nunes Vilaza, Kevin Doherty, Darragh McCashin, David Coyle, Jakob Bardram, and Marguerite Barry. 2022. A Scoping Review of Ethics Across SIGCHI. In Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event, Australia) (DIS '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533511 · DOI
  44. Georgia Panagiotidou, Sinem Görücü, Eslam Nofal, Müge Akkar Ercan, and Andrew Vande Moere. 2022. Co-gnito: A Participatory Physicalization Game for Urban Mental Mapping. In Creativity and Cognition (Venice, Italy) (C&C '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 284-297. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3527927.3532803 · DOI
  45. Paul Parsons. 2022. Understanding Data Visualization Design Practice. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 28, 1 (2022), 665-675. https: //doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114959 · DOI
  46. Evan M. Peck, Sofa E. Ayuso, and Omar El-Etr. 2019. Data is Personal: Attitudes and Perceptions of Data Visualization in Rural Pennsylvania. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300474 · DOI
  47. Maria Puig de la Bellacasa. 2011. Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Soc. Stud. Sci. 41, 1 (2011), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0306312710380301 · DOI
  48. Jonathan C. Roberts, Chris Headleand, and Panagiotis D. Ritsos. 2016. Sketching Designs Using the Five Design-Sheet Methodology. IEEE Transactions on Visual- ization and Computer Graphics 22, 1 (2016), 419-428. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2015.2467271 · DOI
  49. Samar Sabie and Tapan Parikh. 2019. Cultivating Care through Ambigu- ity: Lessons from a Service Learning Course. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300507 · DOI
  50. P. Saraiya, C. North, and K. Duca. 2005. An insight-based methodology for evaluating bioinformatics visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 11, 4 (2005), 443-456. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2005.53 · DOI
  51. Michael Sedlmair. 2016. Design Study Contributions Come in Diferent Guises: Seven Guiding Scenarios. In Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors on Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization (Baltimore, MD, USA) (BELIV '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1145/2993901.2993913 · DOI
  52. Michael Sedlmair, Miriah Meyer, and Tamara Munzner. 2012. Design Study Methodology: Refections from the Trenches and the Stacks. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18, 12 (2012), 2431-2440. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2012.213 · DOI
  53. Paul Shannon, Andrew Markiel, Owen Ozier, Nitin S Baliga, Jonathan T Wang, Daniel Ramage, Nada Amin, Benno Schwikowski, and Trey Ideker. 2003. Cy- toscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular inter- action networks. Genome research 13, 11 (2003), 2498-2504. https://doi.org/10. 1101/gr.1239303 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Ben Rydal Shapiro, Amanda Meng, Cody O'Donnell, Charlotte Lou, Edwin Zhao, Bianca Dankwa, and Andrew Hostetler. 2020. Re-Shape: A Method to Teach Data Ethics for Data Science Education. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3313831.3376251 · DOI
  55. Crystal L. Sigulinsky, James R. Anderson, Ethan Kerzner, Christopher N. Rapp, Rebecca L. Pfeifer, Taryn M. Rodman, Daniel P. Emrich, Kevin D. Rapp, Noah T. Nelson, J. Scott Lauritzen, Miriah Meyer, Robert E. Marc, and Bryan W. Jones. 2020. Network Architecture of Gap Junctional Coupling among Parallel Processing Channels in the Mammalian Retina. Journal of Neuroscience 40, 23 (2020), 4483- 4511. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1810-19.2020 · DOI
  56. John Stasko. 2014. Value-Driven Evaluation of Visualizations. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Beyond Time and Errors: Novel Evaluation Methods for Visualization (Paris, France) (BELIV '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1145/2669557.2669579 · DOI
  57. Lucy Suchman. 2002. Located Accountabilities in Technology Production. Scan- dinavian journal of information systems 14, 2 (2002), 91-105.
  58. Uzma Haque Syeda, Prasanth Murali, Lisa Roe, Becca Berkey, and Michelle A. Borkin. 2020. Design Study "Lite" Methodology: Expediting Design Studies and Enabling the Synergy of Visualization Pedagogy and Social Good. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376829 · DOI
  59. Austin Toombs, Shad Gross, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jefrey Bardzell. 2017. From Empathy to Care: A Feminist Care Ethics Perspective on Long-Term Re- searcher-Participant Relations. Interacting with Computers 29, 1 (2017), 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iww010 · DOI
  60. Austin L. Toombs, Shaowen Bardzell, and Jefrey Bardzell. 2015. The Proper Care and Feeding of Hackerspaces: Care Ethics and Cultures of Making. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 629-638. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702522 · DOI
  61. Rosa van Koningsbruggen, Hannes Waldschütz, and Eva Hornecker. 2022. What is Data? -Exploring the Meaning of Data in Data Physicalisation Teaching. In Sixteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied In- teraction (Daejeon, Republic of Korea) (TEI '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 13, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3490149.3501319 · DOI
  62. J.J. van Wijk. 2005. The value of visualization. In VIS 05. IEEE Visualization, 2005. 79-86. https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL.2005.1532781 · DOI
  63. Jagoda Walny, Sheelagh Carpendale, Nathalie Henry Riche, Gina Venolia, and Philip Fawcett. 2011. Visual Thinking In Action: Visualizations As Used On Whiteboards. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2508-2517. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.251 · DOI
  64. J. Walny, S. Huron, and S. Carpendale. 2015. An Exploratory Study of Data Sketching for Visual Representation. Computer Graph- ics Forum 34, 3 (2015), 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12635 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.12635 · DOI
  65. Gunther H Weber, Sheelagh Carpendale, David Ebert, Brian Fisher, Hans Hagen, Ben Shneiderman, and Anders Ynnerman. 2017. Apply or Die: On the Role and Assessment of Application Papers in Visualization. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 37, 3 (2017), 96-104. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2017.51 · DOI
  66. Caroline Whitbeck. 1996. Ethics as design: Doing justice to moral problems. Hastings Center Report 26, 3 (1996), 9-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/3527925 · DOI
  67. Katy Williams, Alex Bigelow, and Kate Isaacs. 2020. Visualizing a Moving Target: A Design Study on Task Parallel Programs in the Presence of Evolving Data and Concerns. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 26, 1 (2020), 1118-1128. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2019.2934285 · DOI
  68. Aoyu Wu, Dazhen Deng, Furui Cheng, Yingcai Wu, Shixia Liu, and Huamin Qu. 2022. In Defence of Visual Analytics Systems: Replies to Critics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics (2022), 1-11. https://doi. org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209360 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Akbaba, D., Lange, D., Correll, M., Lex, A., & Meyer, M.
Affiliations
  • Linköping University (SE)
  • University of Utah (US)
  • Tableau Software (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-15
DOI
10.1145/3544548.3581168
OpenAlex
W4366548422
Cited by
40
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6
FWCI
4.28
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1835904)
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (WASP)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
collaboration, matters of care, domain experts, graduate students, equity, research relationships

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