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

Maarya Omar

dblp:402/9613 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0008-5406-0048ORCID · 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 · 44% Collaborative and social computing · 44% Design research and methods · 13%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods › qualitative analysis
reflexive thematic analysis
0.312025
Bridging AI and Humanitarianism: An HCI-Informed Framework for Responsible AI Adoption · CHI 2025

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

reflexive thematic analysis · 0.9interviews · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Bridging AI and Humanitarianism: An HCI-Informed Framework for Responsible AI Adoption
abstract
Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) hold transformative potential for humanitarian practice. Yet aligning this potential with the demands of humanitarian practice in dynamic and often resource-austere contexts remains a challenge. While research on Responsible AI provides high-level guidance, humanitarian practice demands nuanced approaches for which human-computer interaction (HCI) can provide a strong foundation. However, existing literature lacks a comprehensive examination of how HCI principles can inform responsible AI adoption in humanitarian practice. To address this gap, we conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of 34 interviews with AI technology experts, humanitarian practitioners, and humanitarian policy developers. Our contributions are twofold. First, we empirically identify three cross-cutting themes—AI risks in humanitarian practice, organisational readiness, and collaboration—that highlight common tensions in adopting AI for humanitarian practice. Second, by analysing their interconnectivities, we reveal intertwined obstacles and propose a conceptual HCI-informed framework.
Tigmanshu Bhatnagar, Maarya Omar, Davor Orlic, Catherine Holloway, Maria Kett
CHI2