Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Lisa Michael
dblp:168/0078
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper |
Recommender systems · 100% | |
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Recommender systems › explainable recommendation
explanation quality |
0.4 | 1 | 2019 | Let Me Explain: Impact of Personal and Impersonal Explanations on Trust in Recommender Systems · CHI 2019 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
empirical study · 0.8
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Quizzes and Eggs: Exploring the Impact of Course Design Elements on Students' Engagement
Lisa Michael, Irene-Angelica Chounta |
CSEDU (1) | 1 |
| 2019 | Let Me Explain: Impact of Personal and Impersonal Explanations on Trust in Recommender SystemsabstractTrust in a Recommender System (RS) is crucial for its overall success. However, it remains underexplored whether users trust personal recommendation sources (i.e. other humans) more than impersonal sources (i.e. conventional RS), and, if they do, whether the perceived quality of explanation provided account for the difference. We conducted an empirical study in which we compared these two sources of recommendations and explanations. Human advisors were asked to explain movies they recommended in short texts while the RS created explanations based on item similarity. Our experiment comprised two rounds of recommending. Over both rounds the quality of explanations provided by users was assessed higher than the quality of the system's explanations. Moreover, explanation quality significantly influenced perceived recommendation quality as well as trust in the recommendation source. Consequently, we suggest that RS should provide richer explanations in order to increase their perceived recommendation quality and trustworthiness. Johannes Kunkel, Tim Donkers, Lisa Michael, Catalin-Mihai Barbu, Jürgen Ziegler 0001 |
CHI | 3 |