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

Matthew Paras

dblp:239/8180 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2019
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

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
1 paper
Collaborative and social computing · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Recommender systems · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Collaborative and social computing
team formation
0.412019
Who Would You Like to Work With? · CHI 2019
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.412019
Who Would You Like to Work With? · CHI 2019
Recommender systems › group recommendation
teammate recommendation
0.112019
Who Would You Like to Work With? · CHI 2019

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

field study · 1.1
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2019 Who Would You Like to Work With?
abstract
People and organizations are increasingly using online platforms to assemble teams. In response, HCI researchers have theorized frameworks and created systems to support team assembly. However, little is known about how users search for and choose teammates on these platforms. We conducted a field study where 530 participants used a team formation system to assemble project teams. We describe how users' traits and social networks influence their teammate searches, teammate choices, and team composition. Our results show that (a) what users initially search for differs from what they finally choose: initially they search for experts and sociable users, but they are ultimately more likely to choose their prior social connections as their teammates; (b) users' decisions lead to non-diverse and segregated teams, where most of the expertise and social capital are concentrated in a few teams. We discuss the implications of these results for designing team formation systems than promote users' agency.
Diego Gómez-Zará, Matthew Paras, Marlon Twyman, Jacqueline N. Lane, Leslie A. DeChurch, Noshir S. Contractor
CHI2