Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article
Open access

Critical-Reflective Human-AI Collaboration: Exploring Computational Tools for Art Historical Image Retrieval

Published: 04 October 2023 Publication History
  • Get Citation Alerts
  • Abstract

    Just as other disciplines, the humanities explore how computational research approaches and tools can meaningfully contribute to scholarly knowledge production. Building on related work from the areas of CSCW and HCI, we approach the design of computational tools through the analytical lens of 'human-AI collaboration.' Such work investigates how human competencies and computational capabilities can be effectively and meaningfully combined. However, there is no generalizable concept of what constitutes 'meaningful' human-AI collaboration. In terms of genuinely human competencies, we consider criticality and reflection as guiding principles of scholarly knowledge production and as deeply embedded in the methodologies and practices of the humanities. Although (designing for) reflection is a recurring topic in CSCW and HCI discourses, it has not been centered in work on human-AI collaboration. We posit that integrating both concepts is a viable approach to supporting 'meaningful' human-AI collaboration in the humanities and other qualitative, interpretivist, and hermeneutic research areas. Our research, thus, is guided by the question of how critical reflection can be enabled in human-AI collaboration. We address this question with a use case that centers on computer vision (CV) tools for art historical image retrieval. Specifically, we conducted a qualitative interview study with art historians to explore a) what potentials and affordances art historians ascribe to human-AI collaboration and CV in particular, and b) in what ways art historians conceptualize critical reflection in the context of human-AI collaboration. We extended the interviews with a think-aloud software exploration. We observed and recorded participants' interaction with a ready-to-use CV tool in a possible research scenario. We found that critical reflection, indeed, constitutes a core prerequisite for 'meaningful' human-AI collaboration in humanities research contexts. However, we observed that critical reflection was not fully realized during interaction with the CV tool. We interpret this divergence as supporting our hypothesis that computational tools need to be intentionally designed in such a way that they actively scaffold and support critical reflection during interaction. Based on our findings, we suggest four empirically grounded design implications for 'critical-reflective human-AI collaboration': supporting reflection on the basis of transparency, foregrounding epistemic presumptions, emphasizing the situatedness of data, and strengthening interpretability through contextualized explanations.

    References

    [1]
    Philip E. Agre. 1997. Toward a critical technical practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI. In Social Science, Technical Systems and Cooperative Work: Beyond the Great Divide (Computers, Cognition, and Work). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J, 131 -- 158.
    [2]
    Rafael C Alvarado. 2019. Digital Humanities and the Great Project. Why We Should Operationalize Everything--and Study Those Who Are Doing So Now. In Debates in the Digital Humanities 2019. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 75--82. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.9
    [3]
    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300233
    [4]
    Caroline Bassett, David Michael Berry, M. Beatrice Fazi, Jack Pay, and Ben Roberts. 2017. Critical Digital Humanities and Machine-Learning. In 12th Annual International Conference of the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, DH 2017, August 8--11, 2017, Conference Abstracts. Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations, Montréal, Canada, 36 -- 40. https://dh2017.adho.org/abstracts/509/509.pdf
    [5]
    Eric P.S. Baumer. 2015. Reflective Informatics: Conceptual Dimensions for Designing Technologies of Reflection. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI '15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 585--594. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702234
    [6]
    Eric P.S. Baumer. 2017. Toward human-centered algorithm design. Big Data & Society 4, 2 (2017), 2053951717718854. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717718854
    [7]
    Eric P.S. Baumer, Vera Khovanskaya, Mark Matthews, Lindsay Reynolds, Victoria Schwanda Sosik, and Geri Gay. 2014. Reviewing Reflection: On the Use of Reflection in Interactive System Design. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (DIS '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 93--102. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598598
    [8]
    Eric P. S. Baumer, Drew Siedel, Lena McDonnell, Jiayun Zhong, Patricia Sittikul, and Micki McGee. 2020. Topicalizer: reframing core concepts in machine learning visualization by co-designing for interpretivist scholarship. Human--Computer Interaction 35, 5--6 (2020), 452--480. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2020.1734460
    [9]
    Jesse Josua Benjamin, Christoph Kinkeldey, Claudia Müller-Birn, Tim Korjakow, and Eva-Maria Herbst. 2022. Explanation Strategies as an Empirical-Analytical Lens for Socio-Technical Contextualization of Machine Learning Interpretability. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, GROUP, Article 39 (jan 2022), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3492858
    [10]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan 2006), 77--101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
    [11]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2016. (Mis)conceptualising themes, thematic analysis, and other problems with Fugard and Potts' (2015) sample-size tool for thematic analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 19, 6 (2016), 739--743. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1195588
    [12]
    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (2019), 589--597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
    [13]
    Alexander Brey. 2021. Digital art history in 2021. History Compass 19, 8 (2021), e12678. https://doi.org/10.1111/hic3.12678 arXiv:https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/hic3.12678
    [14]
    Koenraad Brosens, Jan Aerts, Klara Alen, Rudy Jos Beerens, Bruno Cardoso, Inez De Prekel, Anna Ivanova, Houda Lamqaddam, Geert Molenberghs, Astrid Slegten, Fred Truyen, Katlijne Van der Stighelen, and Katrien Verbert. 2019. Slow Digital Art History in Action: Project Cornelia's Computational Approach to Seventeenth-century Flemish Creative Communities. Visual Resources 35, 1--2 (2019), 105--124. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2019.1553444
    [15]
    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 (apr 2021), 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449287
    [16]
    Taina Bucher. 2017. The algorithmic imaginary: exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society 20, 1 (2017), 30--44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086
    [17]
    Nicola Carboni and Livio de Luca. 2019. An Ontological Approach to the Description of Visual and Iconographical Representations. Heritage 2, 2 (2019), 1191--1210. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage2020078
    [18]
    Nan-Chen Chen, Margaret Drouhard, Rafal Kocielnik, Jina Suh, and Cecilia R. Aragon. 2018. Using Machine Learning to Support Qualitative Coding in Social Science: Shifting the Focus to Ambiguity. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 8, 2, Article 9 (June 2018), 20 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3185515
    [19]
    Robert G. Chenhall and Peter Homulos. 1978. Propositions for the Future: Museum Data Standards. Museum International 30, 3--4 (1978), 205--212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755--5825.1978.tb02059.x
    [20]
    Michael Chromik and Andreas Butz. 2021. Human-XAI Interaction: A Review and Design Principles for Explanation User Interfaces. In Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2021: 18th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bari, Italy, August 30 -- September 3, 2021, Proceedings, Part II (Bari, Italy). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 619--640. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3-030--85616--8_36
    [21]
    Leendert D Couprie. 1978. Iconclass, a device for the iconographical analysis of art objects. Museum International 30, 3--4 (1978), 194--198.
    [22]
    Anna L. Cox, Sandy J.J. Gould, Marta E. Cecchinato, Ioanna Iacovides, and Ian Renfree. 2016. Design Frictions for Mindful Interactions: The Case for Microboundaries. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI EA '16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1389--1397. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851581.2892410
    [23]
    Nan Z Da. 2019. The computational case against computational literary studies. Critical inquiry 45, 3 (2019), 601--639.
    [24]
    Anna Näslund Dahlgren and Amanda Wasielewski. 2021. The Digital U-Turn in Art History. Konsthistorisk tidskrift/Journal of Art History 90, 4 (2021), 249--266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609.2021.2006774 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00233609.2021.2006774
    [25]
    John Dewey. 1997. How we think. Dover Publications, Mineola.
    [26]
    James E Dobson. 2019. Critical digital humanities: the search for a methodology. University of Illinois Press, Champaign, Illinois.
    [27]
    Martin Doerr. 2003. The CIDOC Conceptual Reference Module: An Ontological Approach to Semantic Interoperability of Metadata. AI Magazine 24, 3 (Sep. 2003), 75. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v24i3.1720
    [28]
    Johanna Drucker. 2013. Is There a ?Digital" Art History? Visual Resources 29, 1--2 (2013), 5--13. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2013.761106 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/01973762.2013.761106
    [29]
    Johanna Drucker. 2014. Graphesis: Visual forms of knowledge production. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    [30]
    Johanna Drucker and Bethany Nowviskie. 2004. Speculative computing: Aesthetic provocations in humanities computing. In A Companion to Digital Humanities, Susan Schreibman, Ray Siemens, and John Unsworth (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, 431--447.
    [31]
    Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren F. Klein. 2020. Data Feminism. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
    [32]
    Upol Ehsan, Philipp Wintersberger, Q. Vera Liao, Elizabeth Anne Watkins, Carina Manger, Hal Daumé III, Andreas Riener, and Mark O Riedl. 2022. Human-Centered Explainable AI (HCXAI): Beyond Opening the Black-Box of AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (CHI EA '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 109, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3503727
    [33]
    Peter GB Enser. 1995. Progress in documentation pictorial information retrieval. Journal of documentation 51, 2 (1995), 126 -- 170.
    [34]
    Mingming Fan, Xianyou Yang, Tsz Tung Yu, Vera Q. Liao, and Jian Zhao. 2021. Human-AI Collaboration for UX Evaluation: Effects of Explanation and Synchronization. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2112.12387
    [35]
    Umer Farooq and Jonathan Grudin. 2016. Human-computer integration. interactions 23, 6 (Oct 2016), 26--32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3001896
    [36]
    Melanie Feinberg, Daniel Carter, and Julia Bullard. 2014. Always Somewhere, Never There: Using Critical Design to Understand Database Interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1941--1950. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557055
    [37]
    Jessica L. Feuston and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. Putting Tools in Their Place: The Role of Time and Perspective in Human-AI Collaboration for Qualitative Analysis. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW2, Article 469 (Oct. 2021), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3479856
    [38]
    Kath Fisher. 2003. Demystifying Critical Reflection: Defining criteria for assessment. Higher Education Research & Development 22, 3 (2003), 313--325. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436032000145167
    [39]
    Vilém Flusser. 2005. Thought and reflection. Flusser Studies 1, 3 (2005), 16 -- 35.
    [40]
    Bj Fogg. 2009. A behavior model for persuasive design. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Persuasive Technology - Persuasive '09. Association for Computing Machinery, Claremont, California, 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/1541948.1541999
    [41]
    Christopher Frauenberger. 2019. Entanglement HCI The Next Wave? ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 27, 1, Article 2 (nov 2019), 27 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3364998
    [42]
    Timnit Gebru, Jamie Morgenstern, Briana Vecchione, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hanna Wallach, Hal Daumé III, and Kate Crawford. 2021. Datasheets for Datasets. Commun. ACM 64, 12 (nov 2021), 86--92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723
    [43]
    Lars Hallnäs and Johan Redström. 2001. Slow Technology - Designing for Reflection. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5, 3 (Jan 2001), 201--212. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00000019
    [44]
    Sarah Holland, Ahmed Hosny, Sarah Newman, Joshua Joseph, and Kasia Chmielinski. 2018. The Dataset Nutrition Label - A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standards. http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.03677v1
    [45]
    Matt-Heun Hong, Lauren A. Marsh, Jessica L. Feuston, Janet Ruppert, Jed R. Brubaker, and Danielle Albers Szafir. 2022. Scholastic: Graphical Human-AI Collaboration for Inductive and Interpretive Text Analysis. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 30, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3526113.3545681
    [46]
    Eric Horvitz. 1999. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA) (CHI '99). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 159--166. https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303030
    [47]
    Hieke Huistra and Bram Mellink. 2016. Phrasing history: Selecting sources in digital repositories. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 49, 4 (2016), 220--229. https://doi.org/10.1080/01615440.2016.1205964
    [48]
    Leonardo Impett. 2020. Analyzing gesture in digital art history. In The Routledge Companion to Digital Humanities and Art History. Routledge, New York, NY, 386--407.
    [49]
    JON M. JACHIMOWICZ, SHANNON DUNCAN, ELKE U. WEBER, and ERIC J. JOHNSON. 2019. When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects. Behavioural Public Policy 3, 2 (2019), 159--186. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.43
    [50]
    Anthony Jameson and John Riedl. 2011. Introduction to the Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems 1, 1 (Oct 2011), 1:1--1:6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2030365.2030366
    [51]
    Jialun Aaron Jiang, Kandrea Wade, Casey Fiesler, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. Supporting Serendipity: Opportunities and Challenges for Human-AI Collaboration in Qualitative Analysis. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 94 (April 2021), 23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449168
    [52]
    Matthew G Kirschenbaum. 2016. What is digital humanities and what's it doing in English departments? In Defining Digital Humanities. Routledge, New York, NY, 211--220.
    [53]
    Lukas Klic. 2023. Linked Open Images: Visual similarity for the Semantic Web. Semantic Web 14, 2 (2023), 197--208. https://doi.org/10.3233/SW-212893
    [54]
    Harald Klinke. 2016. Big Image Data within the Big Picture of Art History. International Journal for Digital Art History 2 (Oct. 2016), 15 -- 37. https://doi.org/10.11588/dah.2016.2.33527
    [55]
    Marijn Koolen, Jasmijn van Gorp, and Jacco van Ossenbruggen. 2018. Toward a model for digital tool criticism: Reflection as integrative practice. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34, 2 (2018), 368--385. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy048
    [56]
    Sabine Lang and Björn Ommer. 2018. Attesting Similarity: Supporting the Organization and Study of Art Image Collections with Computer Vision. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, Oxford University Press 33 (2018), 845--856.
    [57]
    Clayton Lewis. 1982. Using the" thinking-aloud" method in cognitive interface design. IBM TJ Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY.
    [58]
    Ian Li, Anind Dey, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2010. A Stage-Based Model of Personal Informatics Systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 557--566. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753409
    [59]
    Milagros Miceli, Tianling Yang, Laurens Naudts, Martin Schuessler, Diana Serbanescu, and Alex Hanna. 2021. Documenting Computer Vision Datasets: An Invitation to Reflexive Data Practices. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Virtual Event, Canada) (FAccT '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161--172. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445880
    [60]
    Joy Ming, Sharon Heung, Shiri Azenkot, and Aditya Vashistha. 2021. Accept or Address? Researchers' Perspectives on Response Bias in Accessibility Research. In The 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, USA) (ASSETS '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 20, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3471216
    [61]
    Luigina Mortari. 2015. Reflectivity in Research Practice: An Overview of Different Perspectives. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 14, 5 (2015), 1609406915618045. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915618045
    [62]
    Philipp Müller. 2020. Understanding history: hermeneutics and source criticism in historical scholarship. In Reading Primary Sources. Routledge, New York, NY, 23--40.
    [63]
    Fabian Offert and Peter Bell. 2023. imgs.ai. A Deep Visual Search Engine for Digital Art History. International Journal for Digital Art History. forthcoming.
    [64]
    Jessica Pater, Amanda Coupe, Rachel Pfafman, Chanda Phelan, Tammy Toscos, and Maia Jacobs. 2021. Standardizing Reporting of Participant Compensation in HCI: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for the Field. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 141, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445734
    [65]
    Katie Rawson and Trevor Muñoz. 2019. Against Cleaning. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, 279--292. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctvg251hk.26
    [66]
    Karen Ruhleder. 1995. Reconstructing Artifacts, Reconstructing Work: From Textual Edition to On-Line Data-bank. Science, Technology, & Human Values 20, 1 (1995), 39--64. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399502000103 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399502000103
    [67]
    Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Alex Hanna, and Emily Denton. 2021. Do Datasets Have Politics? Disciplinary Values in Computer Vision Dataset Development. In Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. (CSCW2, Vol. 5). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 317, 37 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3476058
    [68]
    Donald A. Schön. 1983. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York.
    [69]
    Benoit Seguin. 2018. The Replica Project: Building a visual search engine for art historians. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 24, 3 (2018), 24--29.
    [70]
    Ben Shneiderman and Pattie Maes. 1997. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions 4, 6 (Nov 1997), 42--61. https://doi.org/10.1145/267505.267514
    [71]
    Petr Slovák, Christopher Frauenberger, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2017. Reflective Practicum: A Framework of Sensitising Concepts to Design for Transformative Reflection. 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, 2696--2707. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025516
    [72]
    Linda C. Smith. 1981. Representation Issues in Information Retrieval System Design. SIGIR Forum 16, 1 (may 1981), 100--105. https://doi.org/10.1145/1013228.511770
    [73]
    Matthias Springstein, Stefanie Schneider, Javad Rahnama, Eyke Hüllermeier, Hubertus Kohle, and Ralph Ewerth. 2021. IART: A Search Engine for Art-Historical Images to Support Research in the Humanities. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Virtual Event, China) (MM '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2801--2803. https://doi.org/10.1145/3474085.3478564
    [74]
    Loren G. Terveen. 1995. Overview of human-computer collaboration. Knowledge-Based Systems 8, 2 (Apr 1995), 67--81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950--7051(95)98369-H
    [75]
    Nikolai Ufer, Max Simon, Sabine Lang, and Björn Ommer. 2021. Large-scale interactive retrieval in art collections using multi-style feature aggregation. PLoS ONE 16, 11 (2021), 38 pages.
    [76]
    Ted Underwood. 2014. Theorizing Research Practices We Forgot to Theorize Twenty Years Ago. Representations 127, 1 (2014), 64--72.
    [77]
    Karin van Es, Maranke Wieringa, and Mirko Tobias Schäfer. 2018. Tool Criticism: From Digital Methods to Digital Methodology. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Web Studies (Paris, France) (WS.2 2018). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 24--27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240431.3240436
    [78]
    Peter-Paul Verbeek. 2015. Beyond Interaction: A Short Introduction to Mediation Theory. Interactions 22, 3 (apr 2015), 26--31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2751314
    [79]
    Elena Villaespesa and Oonagh Murphy. 2021. This is not an apple! Benefits and challenges of applying computer vision to museum collections. Museum Management and Curatorship 36, 4 (2021), 362--383. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2021.1873827
    [80]
    Dakuo Wang, Elizabeth Churchill, Pattie Maes, Xiangmin Fan, Ben Shneiderman, Yuanchun Shi, and Qianying Wang. 2020. From Human-Human Collaboration to Human-AI Collaboration: Designing AI Systems That Can Work Together with People. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381069
    [81]
    Claire Waterton. 2010. Experimenting with the Archive: STS-ers As Analysts and Co-constructors of Databases and Other Archival Forms. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35, 5 (2010), 645--676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340265 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909340265
    [82]
    Diane M Zorich. 2013. Digital art history: a community assessment. Visual Resources 29, 1--2 (2013), 14--21.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 7, Issue CSCW2
    CSCW
    October 2023
    4055 pages
    EISSN:2573-0142
    DOI:10.1145/3626953
    Issue’s Table of Contents
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 04 October 2023
    Published in PACMHCI Volume 7, Issue CSCW2

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. digital humanities
    2. human-AI collaboration
    3. human-centered XAI
    4. reflection
    5. tool design

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 649
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)649
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)96
    Reflects downloads up to 12 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Full Access

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media