Contested collective intelligence: Rationale, technologies, and a human-machine annotation study

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

Volumn 21, Issue 4-5, 2012, Pages 417-448

  De Liddo, Anna ^a   Sándor, Ágnes ^b   Shum, Simon Buckingham ^a  

^a OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b XEROX RESEARCH CENTRE EUROPE   (France)

Author keywords

Collective intelligence; Discourse; Human annotation; Knowledge mapping; Learning; Machine annotation; Network visualization; Sensemaking; Social annotation; Social software

Indexed keywords

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCES; DISCOURSE; HUMAN ANNOTATIONS; KNOWLEDGE MAPPING; LEARNING; MACHINE ANNOTATION; NETWORK VISUALIZATION; SENSEMAKING; SOCIAL ANNOTATION; SOCIAL SOFTWARE;

VISUALIZATION;

SEMANTICS;

EID: 84863781486     PISSN: 09259724     EISSN: 15737551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10606-011-9155-x     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Aït-Mokhtar, S., Chanod, J. P., & Roux, C. (2002). Robustness beyond shallowness: incremental dependency parsing. Natural Language Engineering, 8(2/3), 121-144.
2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Eds.). Kluwer: Dordrecht
3. Birnbaum, L., Horvitz, E., Kurlander, D., Lieberman, H., Marks, J., & Roth, S. (1996). Compelling intelligent user interfaces: How much AI?, Proceedings ACM International Conference on Intelligent Interfaces, Orlando, FL, January 1996. ACM Press: NY
4. Brown, A. L., Bransford, R. A., Ferraraand, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. H. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive development (vol. 3). New York: Wiley.
5. Browning, L., & Boudès, T. (2005). The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity: a comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models. Emergence: Complexity & Organization-An International Transdisciplinary Journal of Complex Social Systems, 7(3-4), 32-39.
6. Buckingham Shum, S. (2003). The roots of computer supported argument visualization. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation (pp. 3-24). London: Springer.
7. Buckingham Shum, S. (2008). Cohere: Towards Web 2.0 argumentation. 2nd International Conference on Computational Models of Argument, 28-30 May 2008, Toulouse. IOS Press: Amsterdam.
8. Buckingham Shum, S., Maclean, A., Bellotti, V. M., & Hammond, N. V. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12(3), 267-300.
9. Buckingham Shum, S., Selvin, A., Sierhuis, M., Conklin, J., Haley, C., & Nuseibeh, B. (2006). Hypermedia support for argumentation-based rationale: 15 years on from gIBIS and QOC. In A. Dutoit, R. McCall, I. Mistrik, & B. Paech (Eds.), Rationale management in software engineering (pp. 111-132). Berlin: Springer.
10. Conklin, J., & Begeman, M. L. (1988). gIBIS: a hypertext tool for exploratory policy discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(6), 303-331.
11. Convertino, G., Billman, D., Pirolli, P., Massar, J. P., & Shrager, J. (2008). The CACHE Study: group effects in computer-supported collaborative analysis. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). An International Journal, 17, 353-393.
12. De Liddo, A., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2010). Cohere: A prototype for contested collective intelligence. Workshop on Collective Intelligence in Organizations: Toward a Research Agenda, ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Feb. 6-10, 2010, Savannah GA, USA. Available as ePrint: http://oro.open.ac.uk/19554.
13. De Waard, A., S. Buckingham Shum, A. Carusi, J. Park, M. Samwald, & A. Sándor (2009). Hypotheses, evidence and relationships: The HypER approach for representing scientific knowledge claims. Workshop on Semantic Web Applications in Scientific Discourse, 8th International Semantic Web Conference. LNCS, Springer Verlag: Berlin, 26 Oct 2009, Washington DC.
14. Dervin, B., & Naumer, C. (2009). Sense-making. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 876-880). Los Angeles: Sage.
15. Engelbart, D. C. (1963). A conceptual framework for the augmentation of man's intellect, in Vistas in Information Handling, P. Howerton and Weeks, Editors. 1963, Spartan Books: Washington, DC: London. p. 1-29.
16. Ghosh, A. (2004). Learning in strategic alliances: a Vygotskian perspective. The Learning Organization, 11(4/5), 302-311.
17. Goodman, N. (1986). Mathematics as an objective science. In T. Tymocyko (Ed.), New directions in the philosophy of mathematics (pp. 79-94). Boston: Birkhauser.
18. Gurkan, A., Iandoli, L., Klein, M., & Zollo, G. (2010). Mediating debate through on-line large-scale argumentation: evidence from the field. Information Sciences, 180, 3686-3702.
19. Hagel, J. III, Seely Brown, J., & Davison, L. (2010). The power of pull: How small moves, smartly made, can set big things in motion. Basic Books
20. Heuer, R. (1999). The psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency.
21. Hong, L., Chi, E. H., Budiu, R., Pirolli, P., & Nelson, L. (2008): SparTag.us: A low cost tagging system for foraging of web content. In: Proc. AVI 2008, pp. 65-72. ACM, New York.
22. Horvitz, E. (1999). Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces, In Proceeding of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
23. Kalnikaité, V., & Whittaker, S. (2008). Social summarization: does social feedback improve access to speech data? In Proceedings of conference on computer supported co-operative work, ACM Press, New York, pp 9-12.
24. Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. F. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70-73.
25. Kurtz, C., & Snowden, D. (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complexcomplicated world. IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 462-83.
26. Kong, N., Hanrahan, B., Weksteen, T., Convertino, G., & Chi E. H. (2011).: VisualWikiCurator: Human and Machine Intelligence for Organizing Wiki Content. In: Proc. IUI2011.
27. Levy, D. M., & Marshall, C. C. (1995). Going digital: a look at assumptions underlying digital libraries. Communications of the ACM, 38(4), 77-84.
28. Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C. K., & Secules, T. J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43-62.
29. Lowrance, J., Harrison, I., Rodriguez, A., Yeh, E., Boyce, T., Murdock, J., Thomere, J., & Murray, K. (2008). Template-based structured argumentation. In A. Okada, S. Buckingham Shum, & T. Sherborne (Eds.), Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques. London: Springer.
30. Malone, T. W., Laubacher, R., & Dellarocas, C. N. (2009). Harnessing crowds: Mapping the genome of collective intelligence. MIT Sloan Research Paper No. 4732-09. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1381502.
31. Mercer, N. (2004). Sociocultural discourse analysis: analysing classroom talk as a social mode of thinking. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 137-168.
32. Okada, A., Buckingham Shum, S., & Sherborne, T. (2008). Knowledge cartography: Software tools and mapping techniques. London: Springer.
33. Pea, R. D. (1993). Learning scientific concepts through material and social activities: conversational analysis meets conceptual change. Educational Psychologist, 28, 265-277.
34. Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1995) The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. Proceedings of 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, 2-4
35. Pirolli, P., & Russell, D. (2008). Call for submissions to special issue on sensemaking, Human- Computer Interaction. http://www.tandf.co.uk/ journals/cfp/hhcicfp-sp1.pdf
36. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. (2009). Video annotation tools: technologies to scaffold, structure, and transform teacher reflection. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 52-67.
37. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
38. Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1993). The cost structure of sensemaking. Proceedings of InterCHI '93, pp. 269-276. Amsterdam: Association for Computing Machinery.
39. Sándor, Á. (2007). Modeling metadiscourse conveying the author's rhetorical strategy in biomedical research abstracts. Revue Francaise de Linguistique Appliquée, 200(2), 97-109.
40. Sándor, Á., & Vorndran, A. (2010), Extracting relevant messages from social science research papers for improving retevance of retrieval. Workshop on Natural Language Processing Tools Applied to Discourse Analysis in Psychology, Buenos Aires, 10-14 May 2010.
41. Scaife, M., & Rogers, Y. (1996). External cognition: how do graphical representations work? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 185-213.
42. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
43. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B. Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 67-98). Chicago: Open Court.
44. Selvin, A. (2011, forthcoming). Making representations matter: Understanding practitioner experience in participatory sensemaking. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University, UK
45. Sellen, A., & Harper, R. (2003). The myth of the paperless office. MIT Press
46. Sereno, B., Buckingham Shum, S., & Motta, E. (2007). Formalization, user strategy and interaction design: Users' behaviour with discourse tagging semantics. Workshop on Social and Collaborative Construction of Structured Knowledge, 16th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), Banff, AB, Canada; 8-12 May 2007.
47. Shrager, J., Billman, D. O., Convertino, G., Massar, J. P., & Pirolli, P. L. (2010). Soccer science and the Bayes community: exploring the cognitive implications of modern scientific communication. topiCS - Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(1), 53-72.
48. Smallman, H. S. (2008). JIGSAW-joint intelligence graphical situation awareness web for collaborative intelligence analysis. In M. P. Letsky, N. Warner, S. Fiore, & C. A. P. Smith (Eds.), Macrocognition in teams: Theories and methodologies (pp. 321-337). Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing.
49. Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007). Leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, Nov 01, 2007.
50. Tecuci, G., Boicu, M., & Cox, M. T. (2007). Seven aspects of mixed-initiative reasoning: an introduction to this special issue on mixed-initiative assistants. AI Magazine, 28(2).
51. Uren, V., Buckingham Shum, S., Li, G., & Bachler, M. (2006). Sensemaking tools for understanding research literatures: design, implementation and user evaluation. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5), 420-445.
52. van Gelder, T. J. (2002). Enhancing Deliberation Through Computer-Supported Argument Visualization. In P. Kirschner, S. Buckingham Shum, & C. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 97-115). London: Springer.
53. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
54. Weick, K. E. (2006). Faith, evidence, and action: better guesses in an unknowable world. Organization Studies, 27, 1723-1736.