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

Alexa Frank

dblp:319/3375 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

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-robot interaction · 77% Design research and methods · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Human-robot interaction › anthropomorphism
gender attribution to robots
0.612022
What Pronouns for Pepper? A Critical Review of Gender/ing in Research · CHI 2022

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

systematic review · 0.6meta-synthesis · 0.6content analysis · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 What Pronouns for Pepper? A Critical Review of Gender/ing in Research
abstract
Gender/ing guides how we view ourselves, the world around us, and each other-including non-humans.Critical voices have raised the alarm about stereotyped gendering in the design of socially embodied artificial agents like voice assistants, conversational agents, and robots.Yet, little is known about how this plays out in research and to what extent.As a first step, we critically reviewed the case of Pepper, a gender-ambiguous humanoid robot.We conducted a systematic review (n=75) involving meta-synthesis and content analysis, examining how participants and researchers gendered Pepper through stated and unstated signifiers and pronoun usage.We found that ascriptions of Pepper's gender were inconsistent, limited, and at times discordant, with little evidence of conscious gendering and some indication of researcher influence on participant gendering.We offer six challenges driving the state of affairs and a practical framework coupled with a critical checklist for centering gender in research on artificial agents.
Katie Seaborn, Alexa Frank
CHI2