Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 104 references

MeetMap: Real-Time Collaborative Dialogue Mapping with LLMs in Online Meetings

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Live LLM-built dialogue maps help online meeting pairs keep up with the discussion and reach consensus better than transcripts and periodic summaries.

desk verdict Useful study of AI assistance levels; the baseline comparison is too confounded to support the headline claim about dialogue mapping. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01564 v1 pith:P2RYY72H submitted 2025-02-03 cs.HC cs.AI

Xinyue Chen , Nathan Yap , Xinyi Lu , Aylin Gunal , Xu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords videomeetingsdialoguemappingLLMsummarizationreal-timesense-makingcollaborativenote-takinghuman-AIcollaborationIBISnotationsharedunderstanding
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

This paper argues that real-time collaborative dialogue mapping, powered by LLM summaries, helps online meeting participants make sense of nonlinear conversation better than linear transcripts and periodic AI summaries. It presents MeetMap, a system with two AI-assistance levels: Human-Map, where AI generates categorized summary nodes and participants build the map themselves, and AI-Map, where AI drafts small maps that users edit. In a within-subject study of ten pairs, both variants outperformed a business-as-usual baseline of live transcripts plus AI chapter summaries on real-time comprehension, perceived accuracy of the representation, and support for reaching consensus. The authors conclude that AI should scaffold rather than replace human sense-making, and that showing intermediate AI nodes synchronously reduces cognitive load and fosters shared understanding.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Temporary Node Palette, which displays AI-generated summary nodes in chronological order as the conversation unfolds. Each detected turn is transcribed with Azure speech-to-text, and GPT-4 assigns the turn an IBIS dialogue-mapping tag (Question, Idea, Pro, or Con) and produces a short summary node; a 50-word checkpoint keeps long monologues from delaying the node. Users drag these nodes onto a shared Map Canvas and link them in Human-Map, while in AI-Map GPT-4 first segments the conversation into topic chunks and then auto-generates small maps that users refine. The intermediate node display is what preserves perceived synchronicity and transparency, giving users something to react to in real time before the fuller map structure appears.

What would settle it

Measure node and map accuracy against an expert-coded transcript ground truth across many meetings, or run the same dyadic study with deliberately corrupted and shuffled AI nodes; if the perceived benefits persist unchanged, the effect comes from the visual scaffold rather than from accurate LLM summarization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that turning a linearly unfolding meeting into a collaboratively editable dialogue map, with LLMs doing the summarization, improves real-time comprehension and consensus in dyadic online meetings compared to traditional transcripts-plus-summaries. Participants rated both MeetMap variants significantly higher than the baseline on keeping up with the discussion in real time, on how accurately the representation reflected their decision-making process, on how accurate the AI-generated content was as a summary, and on how well the tool helped them reach consensus. Behavioral logs showed significantly more note-creation and note-checking behaviors in MeetMap conditions with no reported increase in cognitive load, and the two partners contributed to the shared map far more evenly than they did to a shared Google Doc. Users described AI-generated nodes as objective mediators that made it less confrontational to correct misunderstandings, and they reported a greater sense of agency, deeper comprehension, and stronger recall in Human-Map, alongside a lower tolerance for AI errors when they felt ownership of the final map.

Load-bearing premise

The study never measured the factual accuracy of the AI-generated nodes and maps, so the findings implicitly assume those outputs were accurate enough to act as trustworthy, objective scaffolds; if the summaries had contained systematic errors, the reported benefits might reflect the visual structure alone rather than genuine understanding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AI-generated dialogue maps can remove the need for a dedicated facilitator, because meeting attendees themselves build and edit the map during the conversation.
  • Displaying intermediate AI nodes before the final map keeps the system feeling synchronous and reduces the uncertainty users feel while waiting for delayed summaries.
  • Because AI-generated content feels less personal than a peer's notes, users edit it more readily, which leads to more balanced and collaborative note-creation in pairs.
  • Giving users more agency, as in Human-Map, produces deeper comprehension and recall but also higher scrutiny of AI output, so AI accuracy matters most when users own the deliverable.
  • A small visual notation schema with just four categories helps people process fast-paced discussions without adding perceived workload, even as they create more notes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the benefits hold, a key testable implication is that AI node accuracy is a necessary condition: a controlled study with deliberately shuffled or corrupted AI nodes would reveal whether the visual scaffold alone, or the fidelity of the summaries, drives the gains in comprehension and consensus.
  • The dyadic, newly formed teams in this study leave open whether AI-assisted dialogue mapping scales to larger meetings, where turn-taking is faster, map edits conflict more often, and coordination mechanisms such as accepting or rejecting changes become necessary.
  • The IBIS schema did not fit every conversation, so a natural follow-up is to test whether user-customizable or LLM-adaptive schemas preserve the measured benefits while improving representational fidelity in different meeting genres.
  • The design pattern of showing intermediate AI outputs before a final structure could transfer beyond meetings to real-time collaborative writing, brainstorming, or lecture note-taking, where synchrony and user control are in tension.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. MeetMap is an AI-assisted collaborative dialogue mapping system for online meetings, with two variants (Human-Map: AI generates summary nodes and users create links; AI-Map: AI drafts small dialogue maps that users can edit). The paper reports a within-subject study with 10 dyads comparing both variants against a business-as-usual baseline (Zoom plus Otter.ai summaries plus a shared Google Doc). Data include post-task Likert surveys, NASA-TLX, interaction logs, semi-structured interviews, and video analysis. The central findings are that participants rated MeetMap higher than the baseline for keeping up with the discussion in real time, for accurately reflecting the decision-making process, and for supporting consensus, and that the two variants differed in user-perceived agency, ownership, and error tolerance.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper is a useful empirical contribution to CSCW/HCI: it demonstrates a concrete way to combine LLM-generated summaries with collaborative dialogue mapping, explores two levels of AI assistance, and derives design implications about intermediate AI outputs and user agency. The work is an empirical system study rather than a formal derivation, so there is no internal circularity; the claims are grounded in user data. Strengths include the iterative system design, the mixed-methods evaluation, and the explicit acknowledgment of limitations (e.g., Limitation 2 and Limitation 5). However, the comparative evidence against the baseline is weakened by confounds in summary cadence and note-entry mechanism, and the statistical analysis does not account for dyadic nesting. These issues make the current evidence insufficient to support the headline comparative claims without revision or reframing.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.1.3, §5.1.1, §6.4(5)] The headline comparisons are confounded by AI-summary cadence and note-taking mechanism. In the baseline, Otter.ai refreshes AI summaries roughly every three minutes, while MeetMap emits per-turn summary nodes in near real time; Q1 (keep up), Q2 (reflect decision process), Q3 (accurate summaries), and Q4 (consensus) therefore cannot separate the dialogue-map schema from simply receiving intermediate AI outputs more frequently. Limitation (5) concedes that baseline note-taking was minimal and that a better-matched baseline is needed. A control condition that holds summary latency and note-entry mechanism constant (e.g., per-turn AI summary bullets in a linear document) is required before attributing the observed benefits to collaborative dialogue mapping itself.
  2. [§4.2.1, Fig. 11] The note-creation comparison is not apples-to-apples. In MeetMap, 'note-creation behaviors' include dragging AI-generated nodes onto the canvas, creating links, and editing nodes; in the baseline, two authors manually coded Google Docs edits with a different counting rule (each short phrase counts as one note, and a multi-idea sentence is split). The resulting significant differences in Figure 11 may reflect interaction granularity rather than the amount of content produced. The statement that the behaviors were measured 'with comparable granularity' is not supported by the descriptions. Please report a common metric, such as the number of discrete content-creation actions per condition, and accompany manual coding with inter-coder reliability.
  3. [§4.1.4, Fig. 8, §5.2] The two MeetMap conditions were always run sequentially, so the Human-Map versus AI-Map comparisons (agency, ownership, recall, error tolerance) are confounded with order, learning, and fatigue effects. Counterbalancing the task order and the baseline/MeetMap block does not address the fixed order between the two variants. This threatens the RQ2 conclusions in §5.2. Randomizing all three conditions, or explicitly modeling order as a factor, would be needed to support those comparisons.
  4. [§4.2.2, Figs. 9-10] The statistical analysis treats the 20 participants as independent observations even though they are nested in 10 dyads and each dyad experienced all conditions. The Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-rank post-hoc tests also do not correct for multiple pairwise comparisons, which inflates the reported significance levels. A mixed-effects model with dyad as a random effect, or a paired analysis at the dyad level with appropriate multiplicity control, would strengthen the central quantitative claims.
  5. [§6.4(2), §5.1.2] Limitation (2) acknowledges that the accuracy of AI-generated nodes/maps was never technically evaluated, yet Q3 is presented as evidence that the nodes are 'accurate representations' and §5.1.2 uses the perceived objectivity of AI nodes as an explanatory mechanism for consensus building. Self-reported accuracy is not a substitute for an objective accuracy check, especially because the system's benefits partly rest on users trusting the AI scaffold. Please either add an objective accuracy evaluation (e.g., comparing generated nodes and categories against human-coded references) or soften the claims about objective mediation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5.1.1] The reported value 'p = 0.46 < 0.05' is impossible as printed; it likely should be 'p = 0.046' or a similar corrected value.
  2. [§6.1] 'Temporary Code Palette' should be 'Temporary Node Palette' to match the terminology used throughout the rest of the paper.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption contains the typo 'MeepMap'; it should read 'MeetMap'.
  4. [§6.3] The sentence beginning 'T Consistent with previous research' contains a stray 'T'; it should read 'This is consistent with previous research' or similar.
  5. [§3.4.2] The phrase 'as detailed in section 3.4.2' appears inside the same subsection it refers to; the cross-reference should point to the specific paragraph on topic segmentation.
  6. [§5.1.4] The text refers to 'the Zoom condition' where the paper elsewhere defines the condition as Zoom plus Otter.ai plus a shared Google Doc; please use the same condition name throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: MeetMap's claims are empirical user-study results, not derived from their own assumptions.

full rationale

This paper reports a within-subject user study comparing two MeetMap variants against an Otter.ai-plus-Google-Docs baseline. The central claims—that users found MeetMap more helpful for keeping up with content, reaching consensus, and creating balanced notes—are empirical outcomes measured through surveys, log data, and interviews. There is no fitted parameter, no uniqueness theorem, and no derivation equation in which an output is defined in terms of an input. The system does use GPT-4 to generate nodes and maps, but the paper explicitly disclaims technical evaluation of AI accuracy (Limitation 2), and user perceptions of accuracy are treated as perceptions, not as derived predictions. Self-citations, such as MeetScript [16] and LADICA [100], appear only as related work and are not load-bearing for any conclusion about MeetMap's effectiveness. The baseline-comparability concerns raised by the skeptic are internal-validity threats about confounding summary latency and interaction modality, but they are not circularity: the comparison conditions are not defined in terms of the outcome measures. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No mathematical derivation is involved; the ledger lists the system design choices and unstated background assumptions that the empirical claims rely on.

free parameters (1)
  • Turn-splitting threshold = 50 words
    System design parameter that triggers a new summary node when a turn exceeds 50 words, based on cited prior work rather than fitted to study data; it affects node timing but not the central qualitative claims.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption IBIS notation schema (Questions, Ideas, Pros, Cons) is sufficient to capture meeting dialogue without excessive cognitive overhead.
    Used throughout MeetMap for node tagging and map structure; supported only by citations to prior dialogue mapping literature, not by an analysis of coverage in this study. Section 3.3.1.
  • domain assumption LLM-generated summaries and maps are sufficiently accurate for real-time sense-making.
    The paper does not evaluate AI output accuracy (Section 6.4, Limitation 2), yet the main benefits hinge on users trusting and using these outputs.
  • domain assumption The baseline (Zoom + Otter.ai + Google Doc) constitutes a representative business-as-usual meeting setup comparable to MeetMap.
    The baseline uses a live transcript and periodic summaries rather than visual maps; the authors acknowledge in Limitation (5) that a different baseline could change the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MeetMap: Real-Time Collaborative Dialogue Mapping with LLMs in Online Meetings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P2RYY72H

@misc{pith2026250201564,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MeetMap: Real-Time Collaborative Dialogue Mapping with LLMs in Online Meetings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P2RYY72H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01564}
}
read the original abstract

Video meeting platforms display conversations linearly through transcripts or summaries. However, ideas during a meeting do not emerge linearly. We leverage LLMs to create dialogue maps in real time to help people visually structure and connect ideas. Balancing the need to reduce the cognitive load on users during the conversation while giving them sufficient control when using AI, we explore two system variants that encompass different levels of AI assistance. In Human-Map, AI generates summaries of conversations as nodes, and users create dialogue maps with the nodes. In AI-Map, AI produces dialogue maps where users can make edits. We ran a within-subject experiment with ten pairs of users, comparing the two MeetMap variants and a baseline. Users preferred MeetMap over traditional methods for taking notes, which aligned better with their mental models of conversations. Users liked the ease of use for AI-Map due to the low effort demands and appreciated the hands-on opportunity in Human-Map for sense-making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01564 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MeetMap User Interface. MeetMap allows users to create dialogue maps collaboratively in real-time during online meetings with LLM support. The system has the following components: (1) a Video Panel and (2) a Task Panel, which displays the meeting agenda; (3) a Topic Timeline Panel, which shows turn exchanges and conversation topics chronologically; (4) a Map Creation Panel that includes two parts: a) A Temporary Nod… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Users can collaboratively create dialogue maps in MeetMap. Users can use the AI-generated nodes to create the map. (1) Nodes are shown in Temporary Node Palette in real-time. (2) Users can drag nodes to the map and create links between the nodes. Using the interaction suite (a-d), users can create/delete nodes (a, d), edit nodes (b), and delete links (b). When creating/editing a node (b), users can specify the node … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The visual representation of the IBIS notation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We introduced a series of visualizations to improve the usability of MeetMap: (1) The discussion topics are segmented and labeled in the timeline; (2) When users click a topic in the timeline, the topic block changes colors, and the related nodes will be highlighted on…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two Variants of the MeetMap System with different levels of human involvement and AI assistance. In Human-Map , AI only generates the nodes, and users will create the maps themselves. In AI-Map , AI generates drafts of dialogue maps, where users can further make edits …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: AI-Map provides incremental generation of conversation maps so that users perceive the AI￾generated content to be in real-time and digestible. (1) Summary nodes are generated in the Temporary Node Palette in real-time. (2) When a new topic is detected, the nodes in the…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The baseline condition. (1) Otter.ai shows real-time transcript (left), and the key points (right) are summarized by AI. (2) In the baseline condition, three windows are opened and arranged for the participants. a) The otter.ai window is on top to show the real-time tr…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Study procedure: All participants went through the three conditions (M: AI-Map , N: Human-Map , Z: baseline ) and the three tasks. The order of the tasks was counterbalanced. The two MeepMap conditions were always done sequentially, but the order between the two MeepMa…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Survey questions 1) Q1: The dialogue maps/collaborative notes helped me keep up with the discussion content in real-time. 2) Q2: The map/the AI transcript and summary reflect our decision-making process accurately. 3) Q3: The AI-generated nodes/summaries are accurate s…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Q4: The AI-generated Nodes/Maps/transcript and summary helped us reach a consensus. Human-Map and AI-Map show significantly higher ratings in helping people reach a consensus. The error bars represent standard deviations. (∗ : 𝑝 < 0.05; ∗∗ : 𝑝 < 0.01; ∗ ∗ ∗ : 𝑝 < 0.00…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Users created more notes with MeetMap. Users result in a significant increase in note creation and viewing in MeetMap. The error bars represent standard deviations. (∗ : 𝑝 < 0.05; ∗∗ : 𝑝 < 0.01; ∗∗∗ : 𝑝 < 0.001) Creating more notes during the conversation may possibly…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We analyzed the relative number of note-creation behaviors between the two team members in each group. The note-creation behaviors included adding, editing, and deleting nodes and maps in the two MeetMap conditions, and creating, editing, deleting notes in Google Docs…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: shows the intensity of user interaction in both MeetMap variants by detailing the specific map creation and review behaviors. As shown in the left figure, users in Human-Map demonstrated more map creation behaviors, such as manually adding nodes, dragging and dropping…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Descriptive and statistic analysis of the survey questions (∗ : 𝑝 < 0.05; ∗∗ : 𝑝 < 0.01; ∗ ∗ ∗ : 𝑝 < 0.001) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cognitive load across the conditions (∗ : 𝑝 < 0.05; ∗∗ : 𝑝 < 0.01; ∗ ∗ ∗ : 𝑝 < 0.001) Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Article CSCW132. Publication date: April 2025 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Allen, Tammy Beck, Cliff W

    Joseph A. Allen, Tammy Beck, Cliff W. Scott, and Steven G. Rogelberg. [n.d.]. Understanding Workplace Meetings: A Qualitative Taxonomy of Meeting Purposes. 37, 9 ([n. d.]), 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2013-0067

    doi:10.1108/mrr-03-2013-0067 2013

  2. [2]

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N Bennett, Kori Inkpen, et al. 2019. Guidelines for human-AI interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 chi conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2019

  3. [3]

    Elliot Aronson et al. 1978. The jigsaw classroom. Sage

    1978

  4. [4]

    Bon Adriel Aseniero, Marios Constantinides, Sagar Joglekar, Ke Zhou, and Daniele Quercia. 2020. MeetCues: Supporting Online Meetings Experience. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.06259 (2020)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Sumit Asthana, Sagih Hilleli, Pengcheng He, and Aaron Halfaker. 2023. Summaries, Highlights, and Action items: Design, implementation and evaluation of an LLM-powered meeting recap system. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15793 (2023)

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Bailenson

    Jeremy N. Bailenson. [n.d.]. Nonverbal Overload: A Theoretical Argument for the Causes of Zoom Fatigue. 2, 1 ([n. d.]). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000030

    doi:10.1037/tmb0000030

  7. [7]

    Rudnicky

    Satanjeev Banerjee, Carolyn Rose, and Alexander I. Rudnicky. [n.d.]. The Necessity of a Meeting Recording and Playback System, and the Benefit of Topic–Level Annotations to Meeting Browsing. In Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2005 (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2005), Maria Francesca Costabile and Fabio Paternò (Eds.). Springer, 643–656. https://doi.org/10.10...

    work page doi:10.1007/11555261_52 2005

  8. [8]

    Barnett, Francis J

    Jerrold E. Barnett, Francis J. di Vesta, and James T. Rogozinski. 1981. What Is Learned in Note Taking. Journal of Educational Psychology 73 (1981), 181–192. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143614892

    1981

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Jeremy P Birnholtz, Thomas A Finholt, Daniel B Horn, and Sung Joo Bae. 2005. Grounding needs: achieving common ground via lightweight chat in large, distributed, ad-hoc groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 21–30

    2005

  2. [10]

    Antje Bothin and Paul Clough. [n.d.]. A User Evaluation Study: Do Participants’ Personal Notes Help Us to Summarise Meetings? 21, 2 ([n. d.]), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1439

    doi

  3. [11]

    Susan E Brennan. 1998. The grounding problem in conversations with and through computers. Social and cognitive approaches to interpersonal communication (1998), 201–225

    1998

  4. [12]

    Alex Cao, Keshav K Chintamani, Abhilash K Pandya, and R Darin Ellis. 2009. NASA TLX: Software for assessing subjective mental workload. Behavior research methods 41 (2009), 113–117

    2009

  5. [13]

    Hancheng Cao, Chia-Jung Lee, Shamsi Iqbal, Mary Czerwinski, Priscilla Wong, Sean Rintel, Brent Hecht, Jaime Teevan, and Longqi Yang. 2021. Large Scale Analysis of Multitasking Behavior During Remote Meetings. arXiv:2101.11865 [cs.CY]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yining Cao, Hariharan Subramonyam, and Eytan Adar. 2022. VideoSticker: A Tool for Active Viewing and Visual Note-taking from Videos. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 672–690

    2022

  7. [15]

    Senthil Chandrasegaran, Chris Bryan, Hidekazu Shidara, Tung-Yen Chuang, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2019. TalkTraces: real-time capture and visualization of verbal content in meetings. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–14

    2019

  8. [16]

    Xinyue Chen, Shuo Li, Shipeng Liu, Robin Fowler, and Xu Wang. 2023. MeetScript: Designing Transcript-based Interactions to Support Active Participation in Group Video Meetings. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610196

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Herbert H Clark and Susan E Brennan. 1991. Grounding in communication. (1991)

    1991

  10. [18]

    Herbert H Clark and Edward F Schaefer. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognitive science 13, 2 (1989), 259–294

    1989

  11. [19]

    Jeff Conklin. [n.d.]. Dialog Mapping: Reflections on an Industrial Strength Case Study. In Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making , Paul A. Kirschner, Simon J. Buckingham Shum, and Chad S. Carr (Eds.). Springer, 117–136. https:...

    doi

  12. [20]

    Jeff Conklin. 2005. Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems . John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    2005

  13. [21]

    Jeff Conklin, Albert Selvin, Simon Buckingham Shum, and Maarten Sierhuis. 2001. Facilitated hypertext for collective sensemaking: 15 years on from gIBIS. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia . 123–124. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, ...

    2001

  14. [22]

    Gregorio Convertino, Helena M Mentis, Mary Beth Rosson, John M Carroll, Aleksandra Slavkovic, and Craig H Ganoe

  15. [23]

    Jamie Costley and Mik Fanguy. 2021. Collaborative note-taking affects cognitive load: the interplay of completeness and interaction. Educational Technology Research and Development 69 (2021), 655–671

    2021

  16. [24]

    Matthew Courtney, Jamie Costley, Matthew Baldwin, Kyungmee Lee, and Mik Fanguy. 2022. Individual versus collaborative note-taking: Results of a quasi-experimental study on student note completeness, test performance, and academic writing. Internet High. Educ. 55 (2022), 100873...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Laura Dabbish, Colleen Stuart, Jason Tsay, and Jim Herbsleb. 2012. Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work. 1277–1286

    2012

  18. [26]

    Richard C Davis, Jason A Brotherton, James A Landay, Morgan N Price, and Bill N Schilit. 1998. NotePals: Lightweight Note Taking by the Group, for the Group. University of California, Berkeley, Computer Science Division 8 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Natasha Dhawan, Molly Carnes, Angela Byars-Winston, and Narjust Duma. 2021. Videoconferencing etiquette: promoting gender equity during virtual meetings. Journal of Women’s Health 30, 4 (2021), 460–465

    2021

  20. [28]

    Paramveer S Dhillon, Somayeh Molaei, Jiaqi Li, Maximilian Golub, Shaochun Zheng, and Lionel Peter Robert. 2024. Shaping Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-writing with Language Models. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Syst...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Hyo Jin Do, Ha-Kyung Kong, Pooja Tetali, Jaewook Lee, and Brian P Bailey. 2023. To Err is AI: Imperfect Interventions and Repair in a Conversational Agent Facilitating Group Chat Discussions. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–23

    2023

  22. [30]

    Gregory Dyke and Kristine Lund. 2013. Student Strategies for Collaborative Note-Taking and the Influence of FloorControl. (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Andy Echenique, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Ari Hautasaari. 2014. Effects of video and text support on grounding in multilingual multiparty audio conferencing. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM international conference on Collaboration across boundaries: culture, distanc...

    2014

  24. [32]

    Jingchao Fang, Yanhao Wang, Chi-Lan Yang, Ching Liu, and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2022. Understanding the Effects of Structured Note-taking Systems for Video-based Learners in Individual and Social Learning Contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, GROUP (2022), 1–21

    2022

  25. [33]

    Jingchao Fang, Yanhao Wang, Chi-Lan Yang, and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2021. NoteCoStruct: Powering Online Learners with Socially Scaffolded Note Taking and Sharing. In Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–5

    2021

  26. [34]

    Mik Fanguy, Jamie Costley, Matthew Courtney, and Kyungmee Lee. 2023. Analyzing collaborative note-taking behav- iors and their relationship with student learning through the collaborative encoding-storage paradigm. Interactive Learning Environments (2023), 1–15

    2023

  27. [35]

    Jeffrey T Hancock, Mor Naaman, and Karen Levy. 2020. AI-mediated communication: Definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 1 (2020), 89–100

    2020

  28. [36]

    Huei-Tse Hou and Sheng-Yi Wu. 2011. Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study. Computers & Education 57, 2 (2011), 1459–1468

    2011

  29. [37]

    Nick Van Isterdael. [n.d.]. Dialogue Mapping for GuideaMaps. ([n. d.])

  30. [38]

    Rs Renée Jansen, Daniel Lakens, and Wa Wijnand IJsselsteijn. 2017. An integrative review of the cognitive costs and benefits of note-taking. Educational Research Review 22 (2017), 223–233. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 148791987

    2017

  31. [40]

    Dow, and Haijun Xia

    Peiling Jiang, Jude Rayan, Steven W. Dow, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Graphologue: Exploring Large Language Model Responses with Interactive Diagrams. ArXiv abs/2305.11473 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258823121

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Sasa Junuzovic, Kori Inkpen, Rajesh Hegde, Zhengyou Zhang, John Tang, and Christopher Brooks. 2011. What did I miss? In-meeting review using multimodal accelerated instant replay (AIR) conferencing. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 513–522

    2011

  33. [42]

    Kowe Kadoma, Marianne Aubin Le Quere, Xiyu Jenny Fu, Christin Munsch, Danaë Metaxa, and Mor Naaman. 2024. The Role of Inclusion, Control, and Ownership in Workplace AI-Mediated Communication. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–10

    2024

  34. [43]

    Matthew Kam, Jingtao Wang, Alastair Iles, Eric Tse, Jane Chiu, Daniel Glaser, Orna Tarshish, and John Canny. 2005. Livenotes: a system for cooperative and augmented note-taking in lectures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No...

    2005

  35. [44]

    Hyeonsu B Kang, Sherry Tongshuang Wu, Joseph Chee Chang, and Aniket Kittur. [n.d.]. Synergi: A Mixed-Initiative System for Scholarly Synthesis and Sensemaking. ([n. d.])

  36. [45]

    Katherine A Karl, Joy V Peluchette, and Navid Aghakhani. 2021. Virtual Work Meetings During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Good, Bad, and Ugly. Small Group Research (2021), 10464964211015286

    2021

  37. [46]

    Kenneth A Kiewra. 1989. A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond.Educational Psychology Review 1 (1989), 147–172

    1989

  38. [47]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Changhoon Oh, Bongwon Suh, and Joonhwan Lee. 2020. Bot in the Bunch: Facilitating Group Chat Discussion by Improving Efficiency and Participation with a Chatbot. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2020

  39. [48]

    Soomin Kim, Jinsu Eun, Joseph Seering, and Joonhwan Lee. 2021. Moderator Chatbot for Deliberative Discussion: Effects of Discussion Structure and Discussant Facilitation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–26

    2021

  40. [49]

    Tabalba, Michael L

    Nurit Kirshenbaum, Kylie Davidson, Jesse Harden, Chris North, Dylan Kobayashi, Ryan Theriot, Roderick S. Tabalba, Michael L. Rogers, Mahdi Belcaid, Andrew T. Burks, Krishna N. Bharadwaj, Luc Renambot, Andrew E. Johnson, Lance Long, and Jason Leigh. [n.d.]. Traces of Time throu...

    doi

  41. [50]

    Kenneth R Koedinger and Vincent Aleven. 2007. Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review 19 (2007), 239–264

    2007

  42. [51]

    Reneta D Lansiquot and Candido Cabo. 2015. Concept Mapping Narratives to Promote CSCL and Interdisciplinary Studies. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.[ISLS]

    2015

  43. [52]

    Hancock, Dan Cosley, Jeremy Birnholtz, Soyoung Lee, Poppy L

    Gilly Leshed, Diego Perez, Jeffrey T. Hancock, Dan Cosley, Jeremy Birnholtz, Soyoung Lee, Poppy L. McLeod, and Geri Gay. [n.d.]. Visualizing Real-Time Language-Based Feedback on Teamwork Behavior in Computer-Mediated Groups. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Fac...

    2009

  44. [53]

    Claire Liang, Julia Proft, Erik Andersen, and Ross A. Knepper. [n.d.]. Implicit Communication of Actionable Information in Human-AI Teams. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow Scotland Uk, 2019-05-02). ACM, 1–13. https://doi....

    2019

  45. [54]

    Jingxian Liao, Mrinalini Singh, and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2023. DeepThinkingMap: Collaborative Video Reflection System with Graph-based Summarizing and Commenting. In Companion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing . 369–371

    2023

  46. [55]

    Hajin Lim. [n.d.]. Designing to Support Sensemaking in Cross-Lingual Computer-Mediated Communication Using NLP Techniques. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2550610767/abstract/5CFA5E0A7FDA45E3PQ/1

  47. [56]

    Ching Liu, Juho Kim, and Hao-Chuan Wang. 2018. ConceptScape: Collaborative concept mapping for video learning. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2018

  48. [57]

    Bruce" Liu, Vladimir Kirilyuk, Xiuxiu Yuan, Alex Olwal, Peggy Chi, Xiang

    Xingyu" Bruce" Liu, Vladimir Kirilyuk, Xiuxiu Yuan, Alex Olwal, Peggy Chi, Xiang" Anthony" Chen, and Ruofei Du

  49. [58]

    Xinyi Lu, Simin Fan, Jessica Houghton, Lu Wang, and Xu Wang. 2023. ReadingQuizMaker: A Human-NLP Collaborative System that Supports Instructors to Design High-Quality Reading Quiz Questions. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2023

  50. [59]

    Andrés Lucero. 2015. Using affinity diagrams to evaluate interactive prototypes. InIFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 231–248

    2015

  51. [60]

    Narges Mahyar, Ali Sarvghad, and Melanie Tory. 2012. Note-taking in co-located collaborative visual analytics: Analysis of an observational study. Information Visualization 11, 3 (2012), 190–204

    2012

  52. [61]

    Tamas Makany, Jonathan Kemp, and Itiel E Dror. 2009. Optimising the use of note-taking as an external cognitive aid for increasing learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 40, 4 (2009), 619–635

    2009

  53. [62]

    Microsoft. 2023. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/brain-research

    2023

  54. [63]

    Fanguy Mik et al. 2019. The effects of collaborative note-taking in flipped learning contexts. Journal of Language and Education 5, 4 (20) (2019), 25–35

    2019

  55. [64]

    Prasanth Murali, Javier Hernandez, Daniel McDuff, Kael Rowan, Jina Suh, and Mary Czerwinski. 2021. Affectivespot- light: Facilitating the communication of affective responses from audience members during online presentations. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human ...

    2021

  56. [65]

    Gabriel Murray. [n.d.]. Information Processing and Overload in Group Conversation: A Graph-Based Prediction Model. 3, 3 ([n. d.]), 46. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti3030046

    doi

  57. [66]

    Fung Fai Ng. 2008. Dialogue Mapping and Collaborative Learning. InHandbook of Conversation Design for Instructional Applications. IGI Global, 403–418. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Article CSCW132. Publication date: April 2025. CSCW132:28 Xinyue Chen, Nathan...

    2008

  58. [67]

    Otter.ai. 2023. https://help.otter.ai/hc/en-us/articles/5093383818263-Automated-Live-Summary-Overview

    2023

  59. [68]

    Gun Woo Park, Payod Panda, Lev Tankelevitch, and Sean Rintel. 2024. The CoExplorer Technology Probe: A Generative AI-Powered Adaptive Interface to Support Intentionality in Planning and Running Video Meetings. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Confer...

    2024

  60. [69]

    Annie Piolat, Thierry Olive, and Ronald T Kellogg. 2005. Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied cognitive psychology 19, 3 (2005), 291–312

    2005

  61. [70]

    Yan Qu and Derek L Hansen. 2008. Building shared understanding in collaborative sensemaking. In Proceedings of CHI 2008 Sensemaking Workshop

    2008

  62. [71]

    Mark Reilly and Haifeng Shen. 2011. GroupNotes: encouraging proactive student engagement in lectures through collaborative note-taking on smartphones. (2011)

    2011

  63. [72]

    Heather Richter, Gregory D Abowd, Werner Geyer, Ludwin Fuchs, Shahrokh Daijavad, and Steven Poltrock. 2001. Integrating meeting capture within a collaborative team environment. In Ubicomp 2001: Ubiquitous Computing: International Conference Atlanta Georgia, USA, September 30–O...

    2001

  64. [73]

    Samiha Samrose, Daniel McDuff, Robert Sim, Jina Suh, Kael Rowan, Javier Hernandez, Sean Rintel, Kevin Moynihan, and Mary Czerwinski. 2021. MeetingCoach: An Intelligent Dashboard for Supporting Effective and Inclusive Meetings. In CHI 2021. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/resea...

    2021

  65. [74]

    Samiha Samrose, Ru Zhao, Jeffery White, Vivian Li, Luis Nova, Yichen Lu, Mohammad Rafayet Ali, and Mo- hammed Ehsan Hoque. 2018. Coco: Collaboration coach for understanding team dynamics during video conferencing. Proceedings of the ACM on interactive, mobile, wearable and ubi...

    2018

  66. [75]

    Daniel L Schwartz, Jessica M Tsang, and Kristen P Blair. 2016. The ABCs of how we learn: 26 scientifically proven approaches, how they work, and when to use them . WW Norton & Company

    2016

  67. [76]

    Lucas M Seuren, Joseph Wherton, Trisha Greenhalgh, and Sara E Shaw. 2021. Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organization of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction. Journal of pragmatics 172 (2021), 63–78

    2021

  68. [77]

    Yang Shi, Chris Bryan, Sridatt Bhamidipati, Ying Zhao, Yaoxue Zhang, and Kwan-Liu Ma. 2018. Meetingvis: Visual narratives to assist in recalling meeting context and content.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 24, 6 (2018), 1918–1929

    2018

  69. [78]

    Patrick C Shih, David H Nguyen, Sen H Hirano, David F Redmiles, and Gillian R Hayes. 2009. GroupMind: supporting idea generation through a collaborative mind-mapping tool. In Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work. 139–148

    2009

  70. [79]

    Hedderich, AndréS Lucero, and Antti Oulasvirta

    Joongi Shin, Michael A. Hedderich, AndréS Lucero, and Antti Oulasvirta. [n.d.]. Chatbots Facilitating Consensus- Building in Asynchronous Co-Design. In The 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend OR USA, 2022-10-29). ACM, 1–13. https://doi.org...

    2022

  71. [80]

    Seoyun Son, Junyoug Choi, Sunjae Lee, Jean Y Song, and Insik Shin. [n.d.]. It Is Okay to Be Distracted: How Real-time Transcriptions Facilitate Online Meeting with Distraction. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg Germany, 20...

    2023

  72. [81]

    Angela EB Stewart, Mary Jean Amon, Nicholas D Duran, and Sidney K D’Mello. 2020. Beyond team makeup: Diversity in teams predicts valued outcomes in Computer-Mediated collaborations. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2020

  73. [82]

    Susan G Straus. 1996. Getting a clue: The effects of communication media and information distribution on participation and performance in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups. Small group research 27, 1 (1996), 115–142

    1996

  74. [83]

    Sangho Suh, Bryan Min, Srishti Palani, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Sensecape: Enabling Multilevel Exploration and Sensemaking with Large Language Models. ArXiv abs/2305.11483 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 258822925

    2023 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Meng Sun, Minhong Wang, Rupert Wegerif, and Jun Peng. 2022. How do students generate ideas together in scientific creativity tasks through computer-based mind mapping? Computers & Education 176 (2022), 104359

    2022

  76. [85]

    Lev Tankelevitch, Viktor Kewenig, Auste Simkute, Ava Elizabeth Scott, Advait Sarkar, Abigail Sellen, and Sean Rintel

  77. [86]

    Johanna Telenius et al. 2016. Sensemaking in Meetings-Collaborative Construction of Meaning and Decisions through Epistemic Authority. (2016)

    2016

  78. [87]

    Hao-Chuan Wang, Dan Cosley, and Susan R. Fussell. [n.d.]. Idea Expander: Supporting Group Brainstorming with Conversationally Triggered Visual Thinking Stimuli. InProceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (New York, NY, USA, 2010-02-06) (CSC...

    2010

  79. [88]

    McLaren, Marian Chamrada, Oliver Scheuer, Nasser Mansour, Jan Mikšátko, and Mriga Williams

    Rupert Wegerif, Bruce M. McLaren, Marian Chamrada, Oliver Scheuer, Nasser Mansour, Jan Mikšátko, and Mriga Williams. [n.d.]. Exploring Creative Thinking in Graphically Mediated Synchronous Dialogues. 54, 3 ([n. d.]), 613–621. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., Vol. 9, No. 2, Ar...

    2025 doi

  80. [89]

    Tongshuang Wu, Ellen Jiang, Aaron Donsbach, Jeff Gray, Alejandra Molina, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. [n.d.]. PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programming. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (New Or...

    2022

  81. [90]

    Haijun Xia, Tony Wang, Aditya Gunturu, Peiling Jiang, William Duan, and Xiaoshuo Yao. [n.d.]. CrossTalk: Intelligent Substrates for Language-Oriented Interaction in Video-Based Communication and Collaboration. ([n. d.])

  82. [91]

    Ruochen Xu, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng. 2022. Narrate Dialogues for Better Summarization. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022 . Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 3565–3575. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2022 doi

  83. [92]

    Xiaotong Xu, Jiayu Yin, Catherine Gu, Jenny Mar, Sydney Zhang, Jane L E, and Steven P Dow. 2024. Jamplate: Exploring LLM-Enhanced Templates for Idea Reflection. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 907–921

    2024

  84. [93]

    Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re-examining whether, why, and how human-AI interaction is uniquely difficult to design. In Proceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–13

    2020

  85. [94]

    Fangyu Yu, Peng Zhang, Xianghua Ding, Tun Lu, and Ning Gu. [n.d.]. Exploring How Workspace Awareness Cues Affect Distributed Meeting Outcome. 0, 0 ([n. d.]), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2022.2064063

    2022

  86. [95]

    Amy X Zhang and Justin Cranshaw. 2018. Making sense of group chat through collaborative tagging and summariza- tion. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 2, CSCW (2018), 1–27

    2018

  87. [96]

    Amy X Zhang, Lea Verou, and David Karger. 2017. Wikum: Bridging discussion forums and wikis using recursive summarization. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. 2082–2096

    2017

  88. [97]

    An ideal human

    Rui Zhang, Nathan J McNeese, Guo Freeman, and Geoff Musick. 2021. " An ideal human" expectations of AI teammates in human-AI teaming. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 1–25

    2021

  89. [98]

    Yongle Zhang, Dennis Asamoah Owusu, Marine Carpuat, and Ge Gao. [n.d.]. Facilitating Global Team Meetings Between Language-Based Subgroups: When and How Can Machine Translation Help? 6 ([n. d.]), 90:1–90:26. Issue CSCW1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3512937

    doi

  90. [99]

    [n.d.].VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping

    Zheng Zhang, Jie Gao, Ranjodh Singh Dhaliwal, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. [n.d.].VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping . arXiv:2304.07810 [cs] http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07810

    arXiv

  91. [100]

    Zheng Zhang, Weirui Peng, Xinyue Chen, Luke Cao, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2024. LADICA: A Large Shared Display Interface for Generative AI Cognitive Assistance in Co-Located Team Collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13968 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Chengbo Zheng, Yuheng Wu, Chuhan Shi, Shuai Ma, Jiehui Luo, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2023. Competent but Rigid: Identifying the Gap in Empowering AI to Participate Equally in Group Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2023

  93. [102]

    Identified topic

    Rosa Zubizarreta. 2013. Co-creative dialogue for meeting practical challenges. OD Practitioner 45, 1 (2013), 47–53. A Appendix: survey questions and statistical results B Appendix: Semi-structured Interview Questions Questions after Each Condition ( Human-Map , AI-Map , baseli...

    2013

  94. [2008]

    In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    Articulating common ground in cooperative work: content and process. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1637–1646

  95. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Visual Captions: Augmenting Verbal Communication With On-the-Fly Visuals. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–20

    2023

  96. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    The metacognitive demands and opportunities of generative AI. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–24

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.