Machine Learning is a method of statistical learning where each instance in a dataset is described by a set of features or attributes. In contrast, the term “Deep Learning” is a method of statistical learning that extracts features or attributes from raw data.
difference between ML and DL! ML: each instance in a dataset is described by a set of features/attributes DL: extract features/attributes from raw data. It constructs rich representations of the data automatically.
A System for Approaching Revision
Many writing experts suggest that revision should be approaches in a top-down manner by addressing high-order concerns (HOCs) before moving on to lower-order concerns (LOCs).
Higher order concerns: global issues such as thesis, argument and organization Lower order concerns: local issues such as grammar and mechanics.
Writers require to develop their personal writing or revision process!
Cybernetics
Rapid interactive refinement
interactive machine learning
Design’s role is to contribute a humanist perspective that considers the social, political, ethical, cultural, and environmental factors of implementing AI into daily human-to-computer interactions.
what's the community role for such kinds of AI-human design?
Design-Infused
democratic althernatives
Participatory Mindset
co-creating
Myerson’s “Scaling Down” approach
what makes groups of people similar -> what makes them different
Start with the major points going down towards minor issues
major issues first, minor issues later
If you do think a reviewer missed something that was in your paper, don’t outright state this, kindly direct them to this information
don't outright state reviewers' misunderstanding do kindly direct them to this info
understand where each of the reviewers stand. Who is the most positive (or the paper’s champion) and who is the most negative (the paper’s destroyer)?
1st read: understand where each of the reviewers stand!
the act of formulating questions enables us “to organize our thinking around what we don’t know.”
formulating questions enables us "to organize our thinking around what we don't know."
(1) Describing what was done.(2) Describingwhat was found(key results)
Two main things for effective abstract: 1) describe what was done 2) describe what was found
the 2-2-2 rule: Always have two manuscripts in preparation, two under review, and two in press.
2-2-2 rule
One question I had was Figure 3, which purports to show significant differences in a post-experimental measure of learning, but for which the ratings look substantially the same (varying between 55 and 65 on a scale labeled "ratings"). It would probably help to have some additional information or some comment in the text about why this is significant (i.e., there must be small but consistent differences across subjects?).
weakness of the paper
The research does not seem to offer much, however, beyond what has already been published.
reviewer's opinion
These can inform choices between certain menu types in UI design.
highlight contributions to the field of HCI
The paper presents a set of six guidelines on menu design, drawn from two experiments studying menu selection in the presence of other targets on a GUI desktop.
summary
Writing the Review
1) read the paper thoroughly 2) summarize your main points 3) relevant past work 4) significance of contribution and benefit 5) coverage of all the criteria 6) review "as is" 7) polite, temperate language
a design briefing a development methodology or tools an interaction technique an interactive system a reflective analysis results from fieldwork and ethnography, e.g., findings, guidelines, etc. results from laboratory studies, e.g., findings, techniques, methods, etc. theory or model.
type of contributions
in two or three sentences, what contribution the paper aims to make to the field of Human-Computer Interaction
Summarize the contributions (2~3 sentences)
Introduction, Related Work, Main Section, Results, and Discussion
Introduction (Related Work) Method Results Discussion
Collectively all of these commentaries should be directed to helping authors produce the best papers possible, whether a particular paper is ultimately accepted to a venue or not, and are an essential outcome of the review process.
the goal of review is to help authors produce the best papers possible!
a good meta-review also discusses what comments you weighted more heavily from the reviewers, and why, in reaching your evaluation of the paper.
good meta-review -> weight more heavily from reviews, and why
Writing a good meta-review is a lot like writing a good review, only it takes into account the points raised by all of the reviewers, rather than just reflecting your own opinion.
good meta-review: -> consider all of the reviewers' opinions
make great suggestions for how the authors could improve the articulation or organization of their work
good review: 1) make great suggestions for how the authors could improve the articulation or organization of their work
The Good Review will raise smart and tough questions which the authors can then address in their revisions, or it might raise fresh considerations or new aspects of a design space that the authors hadn't fully fleshed out.
good review: 1) raise smart and tough questions which the authors can address in their revisions 2) raise fresh considerations or new aspects of a design space that the authors hadn't fully fleshed out
how the author’s arguments, results, and demonstrations fit into closely related work as well as the field as a whole.
argument + results + demonstration + related word + the field, all of them should tight together!
raise whole new perspectives and angles of contribution that might be suggested by the work, or propose connections to areas of the literature that the author might not have thought of or even been aware of.
good review: 1) raise whole new perspectives and angles of contributions 2) propose connections to literature that the author might not have been aware of
The Good Review reflects on the contributions or possible contributions of the work, and discusses the weaknesses and limitations in a positive manner, but most particularly clearly calls out the strengths and utility of the work as well.
Good Review 1) reflect on the contributions of the work 2) discuss the weaknesses and limitations in a positive manner 3) clearly call out the strengths and utility of the work
Learners not using reflective thinking in problem solving, tend to be less systematic in collecting information and data, spend less time on planning the solution beforehand and usually do not consider alternative methods (Van Mierenboer, 1990:45).
learners tend to not use reflective thinking in problem solving.
Self-regulated learning implies that effective learners are actively involved in their own learning through metacognitive, motivational and behavioural processes (Zimmerman, 1990:4)
self-regulated learning involves metacognitive, motivational, and behavioral processes (Zimmerman, 1990).
the difference between an expert learner and a novice learner
6 key principles of experts' knowledge