EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Chengdiao Fan
dblp:194/9650
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2
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.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
2 papers |
Collaborative and social computing · 91% Human-AI interaction · 9% | |
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100% |
Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational social science and digital humanities
social capital |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Founder Center: Enabling Access to Collective Social Capital · CSCW 2017 |
Collaborative and social computing
computer-supported cooperative work |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | MyriadHub: Efficiently Scaling Personalized Email Conversations with Valet Crowdsourcing · CHI 2017 |
Collaborative and social computing
crowdsourcing |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | MyriadHub: Efficiently Scaling Personalized Email Conversations with Valet Crowdsourcing · CHI 2017 |
Collaborative and social computing
online communities |
0.3 | 1 | 2017 | Founder Center: Enabling Access to Collective Social Capital · CSCW 2017 |
Human-AI interaction
conversational agents |
0.1 | 1 | 2017 | MyriadHub: Efficiently Scaling Personalized Email Conversations with Valet Crowdsourcing · CHI 2017 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
field experiment · 0.6within-subjects experiment · 0.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | MyriadHub: Efficiently Scaling Personalized Email Conversations with Valet CrowdsourcingabstractEmail has scaled our ability to communicate with large groups, but has not equivalently scaled our ability to listen and respond. For example, emailing many people for feedback requires either impersonal surveys or manual effort to hold many similar conversations. To scale personalized conversations, we introduce techniques that exploit similarities across conversations to recycle relevant parts of previous conversations. These techniques reduce the authoring burden, save senders' time, and maintain recipient engagement through personalized responses. We introduce MyriadHub, a mail client where users start conversations and then crowd workers extract underlying conversational patterns and rules to accelerate responses to future similar emails. In a within-subjects experiment comparing MyriadHub to existing mass email techniques, senders spent significantly less time planning events with MyriadHub. In a second experiment comparing MyriadHub to a standard email survey, MyriadHub doubled the recipients' response rate and tripled the number of words in their responses. Nicolas Kokkalis, Chengdiao Fan, Johannes Roith, Michael S. Bernstein, Scott R. Klemmer |
CHI | 2 |
| 2017 | Founder Center: Enabling Access to Collective Social CapitalabstractSocial costs and limited reach inhibit our use of social capital to solicit help. However, individuals are not the only holders of social capital: groups also possess reputations and social capital, and are often prepared to vouch for their own members. In this paper, we design methods for mobilizing this collective social capital in sociotechnical systems, enabling an individual to ask a trusted group whether it is willing to invest its reputation in doing them a favor. We instantiate this concept with Founder Center, a web platform in which members of a local entrepreneurship accelerator ask the accelerator community to collectively make them introductions to potential funders. In a field experiment, enabling access to collective social capital in this community nearly doubled the odds of members making a social capital request. Requests fulfilled utilizing collective social capital were at least as effective as ones utilizing traditional interpersonal social capital. Nicolas Kokkalis, Chengdiao Fan, Thomas Breier, Michael S. Bernstein |
CSCW | 2 |