Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Lisa Michael

dblp:168/0078 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Recommender systems › explainable recommendation
explanation quality
0.412019
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
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 Systems
abstract
Trust 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
CHI3