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

Joseph Chudzik

dblp:276/9781 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0003-1906-2060ORCID · reported

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Human-AI interaction · 50% Collaborative and social computing · 50%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-AI interaction
AI-assisted decision-making
0.812024
Are We Asking the Right Questions?: Designing for Community Stakeholders' Interactions with AI in Policing · CHI 2024
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › AI governance
fairness and accountability
0.212024
Are We Asking the Right Questions?: Designing for Community Stakeholders' Interactions with AI in Policing · CHI 2024

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

qualitative analysis · 1.5interviews · 1.5experiment · 1.5
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Are We Asking the Right Questions?: Designing for Community Stakeholders' Interactions with AI in Policing
abstract
Research into recidivism risk prediction in the criminal justice system has garnered significant attention from HCI, critical algorithm studies, and the emerging field of human-AI decision-making. This study focuses on algorithmic crime mapping, a prevalent yet underexplored form of algorithmic decision support (ADS) in this context. We conducted experiments and follow-up interviews with 60 participants, including community members, technical experts, and law enforcement agents (LEAs), to explore how lived experiences, technical knowledge, and domain expertise shape interactions with the ADS, impacting human-AI decision-making. Surprisingly, we found that domain experts (LEAs) often exhibited anchoring bias, readily accepting and engaging with the first crime map presented to them. Conversely, community members and technical experts were more inclined to engage with the tool, adjust controls, and generate different maps. Our findings highlight that all three stakeholders were able to provide critical feedback regarding AI design and use - community members questioned the core motivation of the tool, technical experts drew attention to the elastic nature of data science practice, and LEAs suggested redesign pathways such that the tool could complement their domain expertise.
Md. Romael Haque, Devansh Saxena, Katherine Weathington, Joseph Chudzik, Shion Guha
CHI4