Thank you for helping us improve future meetings of the Cognitive Science Society.
|
In this brief survey, you will make judgments about six conference sessions. Each session consists of four presentations. For each of the six sessions, you will make three simple judgments:
|
First Judgment: Coherence
|
As you know, a successful session connects talks in a coherent fashion, even though talks are often given by contributors from different traditional disciplines. The first judgment you will make is the degree to which the session is successful in highlighting these deep connections. At a conceptual level (which might not perfectly align with traditional topics or disciplines), is this session successful in pairing presentations that are related in ways that you can appreciate?
|
Second Judgment: Joint Appeal
|
Another important function of sessions is to group presentations that have joint appeal so that people are likely to attend every talk in the session. In the second judgment, you will rate how successful the session is in achieving this goal. Would someone who likes one talk in the session be likely to attend the other presentations?
|
Third Judgment: Human or Machine?
|
As you will hear at this year's conference, we are exploring automating aspects of the conference program creation. Three of the six sessions you will rate were created automatically by a text processing tool. In the third judgment, you will rate whether the session was created by a human or machine.
|
Before making these judgments, we will collect some very brief demographic information from you. Thank you again for participating.
|