With the rapid growth of scholarly archives, researchers subscribe to "paper alert" systems that periodically provide them with recommendations of recently published papers that are similar to previously collected papers. However, researchers sometimes struggle to make sense of nuanced connections between recommended papers and their own research context, as existing systems only present paper titles and abstracts. To help researchers spot these connections, we present PaperWeaver, an enriched paper alerts system that provides contextualized text descriptions of recommended papers based on user-collected papers. PaperWeaver employs a computational method based on Large Language Models (LLMs) to infer users’ research interests from their collected papers, extract context-specific aspects of papers, and compare recommended and collected papers on these aspects. Our user study (N=15) showed that participants using PaperWeaver were able to better understand the relevance of recommended papers and triage them more confidently when compared to a baseline that presented the related work sections from recommended papers.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642196
Challenges to reproducibility and replicability have gained widespread attention, driven by large replication projects with lukewarm success rates. A nascent work has emerged developing algorithms to estimate the replicability of published findings. The current study explores ways in which AI-enabled signals of confidence in research might be integrated into the literature search. We interview 17 PhD researchers about their current processes for literature search and ask them to provide feedback on a replicability estimation tool. Our findings suggest that participants tend to confuse replicability with generalizability and related concepts. Information about replicability can support researchers throughout the research design processes. However, the use of AI estimation is debatable due to the lack of explainability and transparency. The ethical implications of AI-enabled confidence assessment must be further studied before such tools could be widely accepted. We discuss implications for the design of technological tools to support scholarly activities and advance replicability.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3643043
Developing novel research questions (RQs) often requires extensive literature reviews, especially in interdisciplinary fields. To support RQ development through human-AI co-creation, we leveraged Large Language Models (LLMs) to build an LLM-based agent system named CoQuest. We conducted an experiment with 20 HCI researchers to examine the impact of two interaction designs: breadth-first and depth-first RQ generation. The findings revealed that participants perceived the breadth-first approach as more creative and trustworthy upon task completion. Conversely, during the task, participants considered the depth-first generated RQs as more creative. Additionally, we discovered that AI processing delays allowed users to reflect on multiple RQs simultaneously, leading to a higher quantity of generated RQs and an enhanced sense of control. Our work makes both theoretical and practical contributions by proposing and evaluating a mental model for human-AI co-creation of RQs. We also address potential ethical issues, such as biases and over-reliance on AI, advocating for using the system to improve human research creativity rather than automating scientific inquiry. The system’s source is available at: https://github.com/yiren-liu/coquest.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642698
Algorithmic decision-making is increasingly being adopted across public higher education. The expansion of data-driven practices by post-secondary institutions has occurred in parallel with the adoption of New Public Management approaches by neoliberal administrations. In this study, we conduct a qualitative analysis of an in-depth ethnographic case study of data and algorithms in use at a public college in Ontario, Canada. We identify the data, algorithms, and outcomes in use at the college. We assess how the college's processes and relationships support those outcomes and the different stakeholders' perceptions of the college's data-driven systems. In addition, we find that the growing reliance on algorithmic decisions leads to increased student surveillance, exacerbation of existing inequities, and the automation of the faculty-student relationship. Finally, we identify a cycle of increased institutional power perpetuated by algorithmic decision-making, and driven by a push towards financial sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642451
When seeking information not covered in patient-friendly documents, healthcare consumers may turn to the research literature. Reading medical papers, however, can be a challenging experience. To improve access to medical papers, we introduce a novel interactive interface---Paper Plain---with four features enabled by natural language processing: definitions of unfamiliar terms, in-situ plain language section summaries, a collection of key questions that guides readers to answering passages, and plain language summaries of those passages. We evaluate Paper Plain, finding that participants who used Paper Plain had an easier time reading research papers without a loss in paper comprehension compared to those who used a typical PDF reader. Altogether, the study results suggest that guiding readers to relevant passages and providing plain language summaries alongside the original paper content can make reading medical papers easier and give readers more confidence to approach these papers.