Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 100 references

Steering AI-Driven Personalization of Scientific Text for General Audiences

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A slider-based AI translation tool can help non-expert readers understand scientific articles, and reading multiple personalized translations produces a compounding understanding.

desk verdict A novel slider-based interaction for steering LLM personalization of science text, with an honest but small user study; the compounding-understanding claim is intriguing but rests on self-report and unverified translations. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09969 v2 pith:2J6XUMSK submitted 2024-11-15 cs.HC cs.AI

Taewook Kim , Dhruv Agarwal , Jordan Ackerman , Manaswi Saha This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords sciencecommunicationpersonalizedtranslationlargelanguagemodelsanalogygenerationhuman-AIalignmentinteractivesliderliteracyuserstudy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TranSlider is an interactive reading tool that generates analogy-based translations of scientific articles from a reader's profile (hobbies, location, education, favorite food), with a slider that sets the personalization strength from 0 to 100. The paper argues that this makes science communication scalable to diverse audiences, because readers can choose, or explore, the level of contextualization that works for them. In a 15-person study, all participants reported benefits, but they split: some preferred strongly personalized, detailed translations, while others wanted concise, lightly contextualized ones. The central finding is that reading several translations of the same article produced a compounding understanding, as readers assembled a complete picture from partial pieces and corrected initial misunderstandings. If this holds, one article could serve many readers at once through steered translations rather than a single plain-language summary.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is TranSlider itself, an interactive reading interface with three load-bearing parts: a 0-100 personalization slider, an editable user profile (background, age, hobbies, location, favorite food), and a history box that stacks past translations for comparison. The other central object is the prompt template: it combines the profile, the current slider value, a three-point personalization spectrum (degrees 0, 50, and 100), in-context examples of generic versus personalized analogies, and a chain-of-thought instruction that asks the model to reason about how the slider value should change the output. The prompt directs the model to produce two paragraphs, an analogy-based explanation of the research and a statement of its implications for the reader, so the slider value scales how much the translation leans on specific personal details rather than inferred high-level context. This design is what makes personalization steerable without free-form prompting.

What would settle it

Have domain experts fact-check each of the 268 logged translations against the two source articles for unsupported mechanisms, numbers, or causal claims; any confirmed hallucination would break the paper's accuracy assumption. Separately, a randomized comprehension study, one group reading several translations of the BRCA2 article and another reading a single translation, with a factual quiz that asks whether the sugar molecule is the BRCA2 protein, would directly test whether the compounding effect is real or just an artifact of more exposure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that AI-personalized translation is not a one-size-fits-all output but a spectrum, and that the spectrum itself is useful. TranSlider generates, for each article, many translations across the 0-100 personalization slider; readers used them to build understanding cumulatively. Participants generated 268 translations in total, and their favorite translations averaged 53.14 on the personalization scale with a wide standard deviation (33.24), showing that people diverged in what they wanted. Descriptively, extrinsically motivated readers favored lower personalization (mean 40.52) while intrinsically motivated readers favored higher personalization (mean 62.75). The paper also reports that reading multiple translations provided a compounding understanding, with participants describing assembling a complete picture from partial pieces and one reader correcting the misunderstanding that the sugar molecule in the health article was the BRCA2 protein. At the same time, participants worried about the reliability of AI-generated translations and about readers over-relying on them instead of the original articles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that GPT-4o's personalized translations are scientifically accurate and free of misinformation; the pilot verified this only by having three scientists review their own papers, not by checking the two articles actually used in the user study.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Science blogs and news sites could offer readers a range of steered translations instead of a single plain-language summary, letting each reader choose the personalization level they want.
  • The compounding-understanding result implies that reading tools should keep a history of generated translations and encourage comparison, because multiple versions helped readers catch and fix misunderstandings.
  • The descriptive split between extrinsic and intrinsic readers suggests that personalization systems could set different default degrees depending on why someone is reading, not just on their profile.
  • The controlled user-initiative design offers a template for human-AI alignment that reduces data collection: let users steer the output rather than require the model to infer personalization preferences.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference beyond the paper: because the accuracy pilot checked only scientists' own papers, the first test of TranSlider's promise is a systematic fact-check of the two study articles' translations.
  • My inference: the compounding effect is probably not specific to science communication; deliberately showing learners multiple paraphrases or analogies of the same concept may help them repair misunderstandings in other learning contexts.
  • My inference: the paper's observed positive correlation between personalization degree and translation length ($r = 0.36$) suggests part of what readers experience as 'personalization' may be elaboration; a length-controlled comparison could separate the two.
  • My inference: the slider could become a feedback mechanism instead of a one-shot control, letting readers mark the analogy that worked and feeding that signal back into the prompt to make the system learn from the reader without collecting more data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents TranSlider, an LLM-powered reading interface that generates personalized translations of scientific abstracts for general audiences, with a slider (0–100) that lets users steer the degree of personalization grounded in a user profile (background, hobbies, location, food). The authors report an exploratory user study with 15 non-expert participants who read two scientific articles (health and environment) and explored multiple translations, followed by post-session interviews and log analysis. The main findings are that participants differed in their preferred degree of personalization (extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation correlated with lower vs. higher degrees), that reading multiple translations produced what participants described as a 'compounding understanding' of the content, and that the slider offered a simple and enjoyable but sometimes overwhelming form of control. The paper also contributes design implications for steerable human-AI alignment and for science communication, as well as a discussion of trust and verification concerns.

Significance. The work addresses a timely and important problem: making scientific text accessible to heterogeneous general audiences at scale while preserving user agency over AI-generated personalization. Its strengths include a clearly described tool and prompt template (Figure 3), a transparently reported exploratory study with participant quotes and behavioral logs, and a limitations section that names the small sample and lack of diversity. The idea of presenting multiple personalized translations as complementary 'puzzle pieces' is a useful framing for CSCW/HCI research on science communication and human-AI alignment. If the claims are appropriately qualified, the paper can inform future designs for scalable, user-controllable science communication tools.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.3.2 and §6.1.1] The accuracy of the AI-generated translations is load-bearing for the paper's central value proposition, but the only verification was a pilot in which three scientists reviewed translations of their own papers; the 268 translations actually used in the main study (from the two articles in §5.1) were never fact-checked against the source abstracts. Given that the tool is framed as a trustworthy science-communication intermediary (Section 3.2) and that the P2 quote in §6.3.1 shows a participant initially forming a wrong mental model ('the sugar was BRCA2'), the comprehension benefit claims are not fully supported unless the actual study materials were free of hallucinations or factual errors. I recommend a post-hoc verification of the study translations by domain experts or the original authors, or a careful softening of the claim that the tool 'helps general audiences understand' scientific content.
  2. [§5.4 and §6.3.1] The 'compounding understanding' claim rests entirely on participants' self-reports and their written takeaways; no objective comprehension measure (e.g., a pre/post test or an expert assessment of the takeaways) was administered. RQ2.1 specifically asks about comprehension, and the study design does not distinguish between perceived understanding and accurate understanding. The finding is suggestive and valuable for an exploratory study, but the abstract and §6.3.1 should either be reframed as perceived or reported understanding or be supported with a more direct measure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.4.2] The thematic analysis was coded by the first author and then discussed with the second author and the team, but no inter-rater reliability or independent coding is reported; given the qualitative nature of the main findings, a brief note on how disagreements were resolved would strengthen the methodology.
  2. [§6.1.1] The Pearson correlation (r = 0.36) between personalization degree and translation length is reported without a confidence interval or p-value; even though the paper does not claim inferential statistics, adding the 95% CI would help readers gauge the strength of the observed trend.
  3. [§4.1.4] The 'Finish' button is described as a proxy for interest in the original paper, but the paper does not report whether participants actually requested the PDF; reporting these counts would make the proxy more interpretable.
  4. [§6.2.2] The categorization into 'lower degree' and 'higher degree' preference groups (0–45 vs. 51–100) is introduced without a stated cutoff rule; please clarify how this threshold was determined.
  5. [§4.3.2] The pilot study's sentence 'All three scientists found the translations surprisingly understandable' is vivid but informal; consider rewording for a formal report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an empirical user study; its central claims rest on participant interviews and logs, not on fitted parameters or self-referential derivations.

full rationale

TranSlider is a user study, not a derivation. The central claim that reading multiple personalized translations produces a compounding understanding comes directly from participant reports (Section 6.3.1, P10: 'I was picking up some small details here and there, and it pieced it together at the end'), and the preference findings come from stated rationales and interaction logs (Figures 6a-6b). There is no fitted constant renamed as a prediction, no equation whose output is identical to its input, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work. The paper does cite the first author's earlier work [50] to motivate AI-scalable personalization and to discuss user control (Sections 2.3 and 7.2.1), but these citations are contextual framing, not the evidential basis of the reported findings. The pilot study's limited fact-checking scope (three scientists reviewing their own papers, Section 4.3) is a real validity limitation, as the skeptic notes, but it is not circularity: the paper does not claim the pilot verifies the 268 main-study translations, and the comprehension findings are participant experiences rather than mathematically forced outputs. The extrinsic/intrinsic motivation grouping is an empirical categorization used descriptively, not a self-fulfilling definition. Overall, no claimed result reduces by construction to its inputs, so the circularity score is minimal.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces a new interaction paradigm rather than a new physical entity or a fitted model. The key unstated premises are the accuracy of LLM output, the validity of the personalization scale, and the use of self-reported understanding as a proxy for comprehension. These are reasonable for an exploratory HCI study but are not independently verified.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Analogy-based explanations improve comprehension for general audiences.
    The tool's design is premised on analogies improving understanding, citing prior work [9,30,50]. This is not tested against a non-analogy baseline in the study.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated personalized translations are sufficiently accurate and free of misinformation.
    Only a pilot study with three scientists checked for hallucinations, and it covered the authors' own papers, not the two main study articles. No systematic fact-check of the 268 generated translations is reported.
  • domain assumption The personalization degree (0-100) maps monotonically to the intended degree of contextualization in the generated text.
    The paper reports a positive correlation between degree and translation length (r=0.36) but does not verify that higher degrees actually correspond to more personalized or relatable content from the reader's perspective beyond self-report.
  • domain assumption Self-reported understanding reflects actual comprehension.
    The study relies on participants' written key takeaways and interview responses without objective comprehension tests. This is acknowledged as a limitation in Section 7.3.
invented entities (1)
  • Personalization degree (0-100 scale)
    purpose: A numeric construct used to specify how strongly the AI should tailor translations to the user profile.
    The scale is defined by the prompt template descriptions for 0, 50, and 100, but it has no validated psychometric or behavioral grounding. The paper does not demonstrate that equal intervals on the scale produce equal perceptual differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Steering AI-Driven Personalization of Scientific Text for General Audiences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2J6XUMSK

@misc{pith2026241109969,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Steering AI-Driven Personalization of Scientific Text for General Audiences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2J6XUMSK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09969}
}
read the original abstract

Digital media platforms (e.g., science blogs) offer opportunities to communicate scientific content to general audiences at scale. However, these audiences vary in their scientific expertise, literacy levels, and personal backgrounds, making effective science communication challenging. To address this challenge, we designed TranSlider, an AI-powered tool that generates personalized translations of scientific text based on individual user profiles (e.g., hobbies, location, and education). Our tool features an interactive slider that allows users to steer the degree of personalization from 0 (weakly relatable) to 100 (strongly relatable), leveraging LLMs to generate the translations with chosen degrees. Through an exploratory study with 15 participants, we investigated both the utility of these AI-personalized translations and how interactive reading features influenced users' understanding and reading experiences. We found that participants who preferred higher degrees of personalization appreciated the relatable and contextual translations, while those who preferred lower degrees valued concise translations with subtle contextualization. Furthermore, participants reported the compounding effect of multiple translations on their understanding of scientific content. Drawing on these findings, we discuss several implications for facilitating science communication and designing steerable interfaces to support human-AI alignment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09969 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The interface design of TranSlider. A The AI-personalized title of the science blog post appears here. B AI-personalized translations of science articles will appear here. C Users can navigate the slider to adjust their preferred degree of AI personalization for a science article intro. D For each personalized translation, a history item is stacked in the history box. Users can revisit any previous history items to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The workflow of TranSlider. 4.1.2 History Box. The history box on the right allows participants to revisit, review, and compare translations they had seen during the session. Each new translation is automatically added to the stack, labeled with its personalization degree and the time of generation. Users can click on any past translation to view it, which would update the translation panel accordingly. They could a… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Prompt Template Structure. The prompt begins with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example translation (degree = 100) of P14, whose hobby is basketball and rock climbing, and lives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The correlation between the personalization degree and personalized translation length (#words). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration (a) shows the histogram of two distributions: all translations vs. user-selected translations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Several examples of preferred translations. While each personalized translation is longer (two para [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    DeviantArt

    2025. DeviantArt. https://www.deviantart.com/

    2025

  2. [2]

    Google Scholar

    2025. Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/

    2025

  3. [3]

    Midjourney

    2025. Midjourney. https://www.midjourney.com/home

    2025

  4. [4]

    Semantic Scholar

    2025. Semantic Scholar. https://www.semanticscholar.org/

    2025

  5. [5]

    Eytan Adar, Carolyn Gearig, Ayshwarya Balasubramanian, and Jessica Hullman. 2017. PersaLog: Personalization of News Article Content. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3188–3200. doi:10.1145/ 3025453.3025631

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Sarabjot Singh Anand and Bamshad Mobasher. 2007. Introduction to intelligent techniques for Web personalization. ACM Trans. Internet Technol. 7, 4 (Oct. 2007), 18–es. doi:10.1145/1278366.1278367

    arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Anthropic. 2024. Claude 3.5 Sonnet. https://claude.ai/

    2024

  8. [8]

    Akari Asai, Jacqueline He*, Rulin Shao*, Weijia Shi, Amanpreet Singh, Joseph Chee Chang, Kyle Lo, Luca Soldaini, Sergey Feldman, Tian, D’arcy Mike, David Wadden, Matt Latzke, Minyang, Pan Ji, Shengyan Liu, Hao Tong, Bohao Wu, Yanyu Xiong, Luke Zettlemoyer, Dan Weld, Graham Neubig, Doug Downey, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Wei Koh, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2024. Open...

    2024

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Tal August, Lauren Kim, Katharina Reinecke, and Noah A. Smith. 2020. Writing Strategies for Science Communication: Data and Computational Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yu...

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Smith, and Katharina Reinecke

    Tal August, Kyle Lo, Noah A. Smith, and Katharina Reinecke. 2024. Know Your Audience: The benefits and pitfalls of generating plain language summaries beyond the "general" audience. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Hearst, Andrew Head, and Kyle Lo

    Tal August, Lucy Lu Wang, Jonathan Bragg, Marti A. Hearst, Andrew Head, and Kyle Lo. 2023. Paper Plain: Making Medical Research Papers Approachable to Healthcare Consumers with Natural Language Processing. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 30, 5, Article 74 (sep 2023), 38 page...

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Calvin Bao, Yow-Ting Shiue, Marine Carpuat, and Joel Chan. 2025. Words as Bridges: Exploring Computational Support for Cross-Disciplinary Translation Work. InProceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’25). Association for Computing Ma...

    2025

  5. [13]

    Larry Bell. 2008. Engaging the Public in Technology Policy: A New Role for Science Museums.Science Communication 29, 3 (2008), 386–398. doi:10.1177/1075547007311971

    2008 doi

  6. [14]

    Besley, Anthony Dudo, and Martin Storksdieck

    John C. Besley, Anthony Dudo, and Martin Storksdieck. 2015. Scientists’ views about communication training.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52, 2 (2015), 199–220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    Sid Black, Leo Gao, Phil Wang, Connor Leahy, and Stella Biderman. 2021. GPT-Neo: Large Scale Autoregressive Language Modeling with Mesh-Tensorflow. doi:10.5281/zenodo.5297715 If you use this software, please cite it using these metadata

    2021 doi

  8. [17]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  9. [18]

    Wayne Breslyn and Amy E. Green. 2022. Learning science with YouTube videos and the impacts of Covid-19. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research 4, 1 (2022), 13. doi:10.1186/s43031-022-00051-4

    2022 doi

  10. [19]

    Michael Brüggemann, Ines Lörcher, and Stefanie Walter. 2020. Post-normal science communication: exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism. JCOM 19, 03 (2020), A02. doi:10.22323/2.19030202

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Bucchi and B

    M. Bucchi and B. Trench. 2014. Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology: Second edition . Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?id=KrLcAwAAQBAJ

    2014

  12. [21]

    Zana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2021. To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 188 (April 2021), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3449287

    2021 doi

  13. [22]

    T. W. Burns, D. J. O’Connor, and S. M. Stocklmayer. 2003. Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science 12, 2 (2003), 183–202. doi:10.1177/09636625030122004

    2003 doi

  14. [23]

    John Joon Young Chung and Max Kreminski. 2024. Patchview: LLM-powered Worldbuilding with Generative Dust and Magnet Visualization. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (UIST ’24). Association for Computi...

    2024

  15. [24]

    Drew Cingel and Anne Marie Piper. 2017. How Parents Engage Children in Tablet-Based Reading Experiences: An Exploration of Haptic Feedback. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW ’17)....

    2017

  16. [25]

    Cook, Neil E

    Chad E. Cook, Neil E. O’Connell, Toby Hall, Steven Z. George, Gwendolen Jull, Alexis A. Wright, Enrique Lluch Girbés, Jeremy Lewis, and Mark Hancock. 2018. Benefits and Threats to Using Social Media for Presenting and Implementing Evidence. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Phys...

    2018

  17. [26]

    Corrigan, Georgiana Craciun, and Allison M

    Hope B. Corrigan, Georgiana Craciun, and Allison M. Powell and. 2014. How Does Target Know So Much About Its Customers? Utilizing Customer Analytics to Make Marketing Decisions. Marketing Education Review 24, 2 (2014), 159–166. doi:10.2753/MER1052-8008240206

    2014 doi

  18. [27]

    Debarati Das, David Ma, and Dongyeop Kang. 2023. Balancing the Effect of Training Dataset Distribution of Multiple Styles for Multi-Style Text Transfer. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki...

    2023 doi

  19. [28]

    Munmun De Choudhury, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Ryen W. White. 2014. Seeking and sharing health information online: comparing search engines and social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). A...

    2014

  20. [29]

    C Dimarco, P Bray, HD Covvey, DD Cowan, V Diciccio, E Hovy, Joan Lipa, and C Yang. 2006. Authoring and generation of individualized patient education materials. AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings 2006 (2006), 195–199

    2006

  21. [30]

    Zijian Ding, Arvind Srinivasan, Stephen Macneil, and Joel Chan. 2023. Fluid Transformers and Creative Analogies: Exploring Large Language Models’ Capacity for Augmenting Cross-Domain Analogical Creativity. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Creativity and Cognition (Virt...

    2023

  22. [31]

    Shiran Dudy, Steven Bedrick, and Bonnie Webber. 2021. Refocusing on Relevance: Personalization in NLG. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Marie-Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih (Eds.). ...

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    Baruch Fischhoff. 2013. The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, supplement_3 (2013), 14033–14039. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110

    2013 doi

  24. [33]

    Raymond Fok, Hita Kambhamettu, Luca Soldaini, Jonathan Bragg, Kyle Lo, Marti Hearst, Andrew Head, and Daniel S Weld. 2023. Scim: Intelligent Skimming Support for Scientific Papers. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (Sydney, NSW, ...

    2023

  25. [34]

    Andrew Gelman and John Carlin. 2014. Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, 6 (Nov. 2014), 641–651. doi:10.1177/1745691614551642 PMID: 26186114

    2014 doi

  26. [35]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, Sarah Huang, Jennifer Lee, and Lydia B. Chilton. 2021. What Makes Tweetorials Tick: How Experts Communicate Complex Topics on Twitter. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 422 (Oct. 2021), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3479566

    2021 doi

  27. [36]

    James E. Grunig. 1979. Research on Science Communication: What is Known and What Needs To Be Known. Journal of Applied Communications 62, 4 (1979). doi:10.4148/1051-0834.1882

    1979

  28. [37]

    Kummerfeld, and Elena L

    Ziwei Gu, Ian Arawjo, Kenneth Li, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, and Elena L. Glassman. 2024. An AI-Resilient Text Rendering Technique for Reading and Skimming Documents. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24). As...

    2024

  29. [38]

    Guelfo, P

    Jennifer L. Guelfo, P. Lee Ferguson, Jonathan Beck, Melissa Chernick, Alonso Doria-Manzur, Patrick W. Faught, Thomas Flug, Evan P. Gray, Nishad Jayasundara, Detlef R. U. Knappe, Abigail S. Joyce, Pingping Meng, and Marzieh Shojaei. 2024. Lithium-ion battery components are at t...

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Qingyu Guo, Kangyu Yuan, Changyang He, Zhenhui Peng, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. Exploring the Evolvement of Artwork Descriptions in Online Creative Community under the Surge of Generative AI: A Case Study of DeviantArt. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors ...

    2024

  31. [40]

    Weld, and Marti A

    Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Dongyeop Kang, Raymond Fok, Sam Skjonsberg, Daniel S. Weld, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. Augmenting Scientific Papers with Just-in-Time, Position-Sensitive Definitions of Terms and Symbols. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Compu...

    2021

  32. [41]

    Head, Michele Van Hoeck, and Kirsten Hostetler

    Alison J. Head, Michele Van Hoeck, and Kirsten Hostetler. 2017. Why blogs endure: A study of recent college graduates and motivations for blog readership. First Monday 22, 10 (Oct. 2017). doi:10.5210/fm.v22i10.8065

    2017 doi

  33. [42]

    Chris Hogan. 2024. Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/

    2024

  34. [43]

    Youyang Hou and Dakuo Wang. 2017. Hacking with NPOs: Collaborative Analytics and Broker Roles in Civic Data Hackathons. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 53 (Dec. 2017), 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3134688

    2017 doi

  35. [44]

    Jessica Hullman, Yea-Seul Kim, Francis Nguyen, Lauren Speers, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2018. Improving Compre- hension of Measurements Using Concrete Re-expression Strategies. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (C...

    2018

  36. [45]

    Maia Jacobs, James Clawson, and Elizabeth D. Mynatt. 2014. Cancer navigation: opportunities and challenges for facilitating the breast cancer journey. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA)...

    2014

  37. [46]

    Paige Brown Jarreau and Lance Porter. 2018. Science in the Social Media Age: Profiles of Science Blog Readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 95, 1 (2018), 142–168. doi:10.1177/1077699016685558

    2018 doi

  38. [47]

    Shagun Jhaver, Alice Qian Zhang, Quan Ze Chen, Nikhila Natarajan, Ruotong Wang, and Amy X. Zhang. 2023. Personalizing Content Moderation on Social Media: User Perspectives on Moderation Choices, Interface Design, and Labor. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 28...

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    Ridley Jones, Lucas Colusso, Katharina Reinecke, and Gary Hsieh. 2019. r/science: Challenges and Opportunities in Online Science Communication. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Com...

    2019

  40. [50]

    Taewook Kim, Hyomin Han, Eytan Adar, Matthew Kay, and John Joon Young Chung. 2024. Authors’ Values and Attitudes Towards AI-bridged Scalable Personalization of Creative Language Arts. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)...

    2024

  41. [51]

    Taewook Kim, Jung Soo Lee, Zhenhui Peng, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2019. Love in Lyrics: An Exploration of Supporting Textual Manifestation of Affection in Social Messaging. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 79 (nov 2019), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3359181

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    Yea-Seul Kim, Jake M Hofman, and Daniel G Goldstein. 2022. Putting scientific results in perspective: Improving the communication of standardized effect sizes. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI ’22). Ass...

    2022

  43. [53]

    Yea-Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, and Eytan Adar. 2015. DeScipher: A Text Simplification Tool for Science Journalism. In Computation+Journalism Symposium

    2015

  44. [54]

    Yea-Seul Kim, Jessica Hullman, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2016. Generating Personalized Spatial Analogies for Distances and Areas. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). Association for Computing Machin...

    2016

  45. [55]

    Costa, Callum Oddy, Hannan Wong, C

    Li Ren Kong, Komal Gupta, Andy Jialun Wu, David Perera, Roland Ivanyi-Nagy, Syed Moiz Ahmed, Tuan Zea Tan, Shawn Lu-Wen Tan, Alessandra Fuddin, Elayanambi Sundaramoorthy, Grace Shiqing Goh, Regina Tong Xin Wong, Ana S.H. Costa, Callum Oddy, Hannan Wong, C. Pawan K. Patro, Yun ...

  46. [56]

    Bernstein, and Scott R

    Chinmay Kulkarni, Julia Cambre, Yasmine Kotturi, Michael S. Bernstein, and Scott R. Klemmer. 2015. Talkabout: Making Distance Matter with Small Groups in Massive Classes. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancou...

    2015

  47. [57]

    Philippe Laban, Jesse Vig, Marti Hearst, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2024. Beyond the Chat: Executable and Verifiable Text-Editing with LLMs. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (UIST ’24). Asso...

    2024

  48. [58]

    Irene Lee and Beatriz Perret. 2022. Preparing High School Teachers to Integrate AI Methods into STEM Classrooms. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 36, 11 (Jun. 2022), 12783–12791. doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i11. 21557

    2022 doi

  49. [59]

    Leerink, M

    A. Leerink, M. Bos, D. Reijnders, and E. van Sebille. 2024. The (non)effect of personalization in climate texts on the credibility of climate scientists: a case study on sustainable travel. Geoscience Communication 7, 3 (2024), 201–214. doi:10.5194/gc-7-201-2024

    2024 doi

  50. [60]

    You Shouldn’t Need to Share Your Data

    Anna Lenhart, Sunyup Park, Michael Zimmer, and Jessica Vitak. 2023. "You Shouldn’t Need to Share Your Data": Perceived Privacy Risks and Mitigation Strategies Among Privacy-Conscious Smart Home Power Users. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article 247 (Oct. 2023), 34...

    2023 doi

  51. [61]

    It’s all about conversation

    Tiffany Wenting Li, Karrie Karahalios, and Hari Sundaram. 2021. "It’s all about conversation": Challenges and Concerns of Faculty and Students in the Arts, Humanities, and the Social Sciences about Education at Scale. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW3, Article 216 (Jan...

    2021 doi

  52. [62]

    Yusheng Li, Lijiang Shen, James Price Dillard, and Siyoung Sue Li. 2024. A Content Analysis of Online Messages about Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. Nutrients 16, 7 (29 Mar 2024), 1005. doi:10.3390/nu16071005 PMID: 38613038; PMCID: PMC11013644

    2024 doi

  53. [63]

    Soo Lim, So-Youn Kim, Jung Im Kim, Min Kyung Kwon, Sei Jin Min, Soo Young Yoo, Seon Mee Kang, Hong Il Kim, Hye Seung Jung, Kyong Soo Park, Jun Oh Ryu, Hayley Shin, and Hak Chul Jang. 2011. A Survey on Ubiquitous Healthcare Service Demand among Diabetic Patients. Diabetes & Met...

    2011 doi

  54. [64]

    Yuhan Liu, Aadit Shah, Jordan Ackerman, and Manaswi Saha. 2025. Exploring the Design Space of Real-time LLM Knowledge Support Systems: A Case Study of Jargon Explanations. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25) . ACM, Yokohama, Jap...

    2025

  55. [65]

    Carolina Llorente, Gema Revuelta, Mar Carrió, and Miquel Porta. 2019. Scientists’ opinions and attitudes towards citizens’ understanding of science and their role in public engagement activities. PLOS ONE 14 (11 2019), 1–20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0224262

    2019 doi

  56. [66]

    Duri Long, Takeria Blunt, and Brian Magerko. 2021. Co-Designing AI Literacy Exhibits for Informal Learning Spaces. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 293 (Oct. 2021), 35 pages. doi:10.1145/3476034

    2021 doi

  57. [67]

    Maria Loroño-Leturiondo and Sarah R. Davies. 2018. Responsibility and science communication: scientists’ experiences of and perspectives on public communication activities. Journal of Responsible Innovation 5, 2 (2018), 170–185. doi:10.1080/23299460.2018.1434739

    2018

  58. [68]

    Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Aleksandra Mojsilović

    Yaoli Mao, Dakuo Wang, Michael Muller, Kush R. Varshney, Ioana Baldini, Casey Dugan, and Aleksandra Mojsilović

  59. [69]

    MacDonald

    Curtis Martin and Bertrum H. MacDonald. 2020. Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLOS ONE 15, 11 (11 2020), 1–32. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0241972

    2020 doi

  60. [70]

    Susana Martinez-Conde. 2016. Has Contemporary Academia Outgrown the Carl Sagan Effect? Journal of Neuroscience 36, 7 (2016), 2077–2082. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0086-16.2016

    2016 doi

  61. [71]

    Meta. 2024. Meta Llama 3. https://llama.meta.com/

    2024

  62. [72]

    Bryan Min, Allen Chen, Yining Cao, and Haijun Xia. 2025. Malleable Overview-Detail Interfaces. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–25. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714164

    2025

  63. [73]

    Montgomery, Brendan Nyhan, and Michelle Torres

    Jacob M. Montgomery, Brendan Nyhan, and Michelle Torres. 2018. How Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It. American Journal of Political Science 62, 3 (2018), 760–775. doi:10.1111/ajps.12357

    2018 doi

  64. [74]

    Ha Nguyen, Victoria Nguyen, Saríah López-Fierro, Sara Ludovise, and Rossella Santagata. 2024. Simulating Climate Change Discussion with Large Language Models: Considerations for Science Communication at Scale. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (...

    2024

  65. [75]

    If it is easy to understand then it will have value

    Chinasa T. Okolo, Dhruv Agarwal, Nicola Dell, and Aditya Vashistha. 2024. "If it is easy to understand then it will have value": Examining Perceptions of Explainable AI with Community Health Workers in Rural India. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1, Article 71 (April 2...

    2024 doi

  66. [76]

    OpenAI. 2022. ChatGPT. https://openai.com/chatgpt/

    2022

  67. [77]

    G. Orwell. 2024. 1984. Modernista. https://books.google.com/books?id=ET0EEQAAQBAJ

    2024

  68. [78]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Christiano, Jan Leike, and...

    2022 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Hans Peter Peters. 2013. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, supplement_3 (2013), 14102–14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110

    2013 doi

  70. [80]

    Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, and Saleh A

    Habeeb Ibrahim Abdul Razack, Sam T. Mathew, Fathinul Fikri Ahmad Saad, and Saleh A. Alqahtani. 2021. Artificial intelligence-assisted tools for redefining the communication landscape of the scholarly world. Science Editing 8, 2 (2021). doi:10.6087/kcse.244

    2021 doi

  71. [81]

    Rice and Howard Giles

    Ronald E. Rice and Howard Giles. 2017. The Contexts and Dynamics of Science Communication and Language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36, 1 (2017), 127–139. doi:10.1177/0261927X16663257

    2017 doi

  72. [82]

    Mark O. Riedl. 2010. Scalable personalization of interactive experiences through creative automation. Comput. Entertain. 8, 4, Article 26 (dec 2010), 3 pages. doi:10.1145/1921141.1921146

    2010

  73. [83]

    Mark Ryan. 2020. In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability. Science and Engineering Ethics 26, 5 (2020), 2749–2767. doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00228-y

    2020 doi

  74. [84]

    Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, and Steven Soter. 1980. Cosmos: A Personal Voyage. Television series, 13 episodes

    1980

  75. [85]

    Froehlich

    Manaswi Saha, Devanshi Chauhan, Siddhant Patil, Rachel Kangas, Jeffrey Heer, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2021. Urban Accessibility as a Socio-Political Problem: A Multi-Stakeholder Analysis.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW3, Article 209 (Jan. 2021), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3432908

    2021 doi

  76. [86]

    Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work

    Nithya Sambasivan, Shivani Kapania, Hannah Highfill, Diana Akrong, Praveen Paritosh, and Lora M Aroyo. 2021. “Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syste...

    2021

  77. [87]

    Mike S. Schäfer. 2017. How Changing Media Structures Are Affecting Science News Coverage. InThe Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication . Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.5

    2017

  78. [88]

    Marén Schorch, Lin Wan, David William Randall, and Volker Wulf. 2016. Designing for Those who are Overlooked: Insider Perspectives on Care Practices and Cooperative Work of Elderly Informal Caregivers. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative...

    2016

  79. [89]

    Cacciatore, Dietram A

    Leona Yi-Fan Su, Michael A. Cacciatore, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard, and Michael A. Xenos. 2014. Inequalities in Scientific Understanding: Differentiating Between Factual and Perceived Knowledge Gaps. Science Communication 36, 3 (2014), 352–378. doi:10.1177/107554...

    2014 doi

  80. [90]

    Times. 2024. Science Times. https://www.sciencetimes.com/

    2024

  81. [91]

    Chi, Quoc V

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V. Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processi...

    2022

  82. [92]

    Spencer Williams, Ridley Jones, Katharina Reinecke, and Gary Hsieh. 2022. An HCI Research Agenda for Online Science Communication. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 490 (Nov. 2022), 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3555591

    2022 doi

  83. [93]

    Shaomei Wu, Lindsay Reynolds, Xian Li, and Francisco Guzmán. 2019. Design and Evaluation of a Social Media Writing Support Tool for People with Dyslexia. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Associati...

    2019

  84. [94]

    Shaomei Wu, Jeffrey Wieland, Omid Farivar, and Julie Schiller. 2017. Automatic Alt-text: Computer-generated Image Descriptions for Blind Users on a Social Network Service. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Po...

    2017

  85. [95]

    Pendse, Nathaniel Young Lu, Michael L

    Dong Whi Yoo, Hayoung Woo, Sachin R. Pendse, Nathaniel Young Lu, Michael L. Birnbaum, Gregory D. Abowd, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2024. Missed Opportunities for Human-Centered AI Research: Understanding Stakeholder Collaboration in Mental Health AI Research. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comp...

    2024 doi

  86. [96]

    Richard Zhang and Emőke-Ágnes Horvát. 2025. The Unwanted Dissemination of Science: The Usage of Academic Articles as Ammunition in Contested Discursive Arenas on Twitter. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction CSCW (2025), 16 pages

    2025

  87. [97]

    Tiancheng Zhao and Kyusong Lee. 2020. Talk to Papers: Bringing Neural Question Answering to Academic Search. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations , Asli Celikyilmaz and Tsung-Hsien Wen (Eds.). Associa...

    2020 doi

  88. [98]

    Minjun Zhu, Yixuan Weng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2025. Personality Alignment of Large Language Models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/forum?id=0DZEs8NpUH

    2025

  89. [99]

    Yimei Zhu and Kingsley Purdam. 2017. Social media, science communication and the academic super user in the United Kingdom. First Monday 22, 11 (Oct. 2017). doi:10.5210/fm.v22i11.7866

    2017 doi

  90. [100]

    two-hit” tumor suppression by BRCA2 Abstract: Knudson’s “two-hit

    Thomas P Zollo, Andrew Wei Tung Siah, Naimeng Ye, Ang Li, and Hongseok Namkoong. 2025. PersonalLLM: Tailoring LLMs to Individual Preferences. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations . https://openreview.net/forum?id=2R7498e2Tx Proc. ACM Hum.-Comp...

    2025

  91. [2019]

    ACM Hum.-Comput

    How Data Scientists Work Together With Domain Experts in Scientific Collaborations: To Find The Right Answer Or To Ask The Right Question?Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, GROUP, Article 237 (Dec. 2019), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3361118

    2019 doi

  92. [2024]

    Cell 187, 9 (2024), 2269–2287.e16

    A glycolytic metabolite bypasses "two-hit" tumor suppression by BRCA2. Cell 187, 9 (2024), 2269–2287.e16. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.006

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.