Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

A methodology and a platform for high-quality rich personal data

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A platform that gives researchers, participants, and the app itself control over when and where data are collected can improve the quality and richness of combined sensor and questionnaire data.

desk verdict Solid systems paper with a genuinely useful platform, but the headline quality-improvement claim rests on an unvalidated proxy. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16864 v3 pith:PKDBSFIF submitted 2025-01-28 cs.HC

Ivan Kayongo , Leonardo Malcotti , Haonan Zhao , Fausto Giunchiglia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords big-thickdatapersonalcollectioncontext-awareschedulingsituationalcontexttemporalmobilesensinganswerqualitypredictionexperiencesampling
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

The paper sets out to solve a known weakness in "big-thick data" collection: smartphones gather objective sensor streams easily, but the subjective questionnaire answers that give those streams meaning are often missing, rushed, or wrong. Its proposal is a methodology and platform, built on the existing iLog app, that gives the researcher, the participant, and the platform itself shared control over the data-collection process. Four mechanisms carry this: a five-dimension situational context model, a calendar-based scheduling language called iLogCal, a dashboard for real-time monitoring, and runtime plan revision. On a study of 350 university students, with 170 analyzed, the platform shows that contextual features predict whether an answer arrives within 30 minutes, the paper's proxy for answer quality, with up to 75.8 percent accuracy. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's central claim to be that placing these three actors in control of the collection context is what enables the step from raw sensor logs to high-quality personal data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the coupling of question-answering (QA) sensors with a scheduling language. QA sensors timestamp three events for every question, generation, delivery to the participant's device, and storage of the answer, which makes response time computable from platform data itself. iLogCal, an extension of the iCal/RFC5545 standard, expresses an experiment as calendars containing question and sensor collections whose activation is conditioned on situational context dimensions (WE, WA, WI, WO, WU) and on recurrence rules; this lets the researcher, participant, or platform decide when a question may fire. The situational context model represents each moment of a person's day as a tuple of five linguistic context components and connects them in a knowledge graph whose attributes and relations can be used as preconditions for questions or sensor tasks. The dashboard then makes this plan visible and editable in real time, closing the loop that the machine-learning component exploits.

What would settle it

Re-run the Section 7 analysis with a direct measure of answer correctness, for example validation questions with known right answers, and check whether high-quality predictions align with correct answers; if the 30-minute threshold fails to correlate with correctness in this dataset, the central empirical claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the process of data collection can itself be treated as the object of data collection: by modeling the situational context (where, what, who with, internal state, tools) and the temporal context (scheduling constraints and execution annotations) of every question and sensor reading, the platform makes the conditions under which each answer was produced explicit and actionable. The empirical result is that these conditions predict answer quality, defined as answering within 30 minutes, better than chance: Random Forest reaches 0.758 accuracy, outperforming KNN, logistic regression, SVM, and Gaussian Naive Bayes, and per-participant accuracy ranges from about 65.9 to 88.6 percent. The authors conclude that the platform can learn when to ask a question so as to minimize reaction time and thereby improve the quality of the collected data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that an answer given within 30 minutes is a high-quality answer, a threshold the paper adopts from earlier work rather than validating on this study's participants; if that proxy does not track actual answer correctness here, the quality-prediction claim loses its foundation even though the platform itself may work as described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An experiment plan written in iLogCal can be revised while it runs, by a participant within researcher-set bounds, by the researcher for one or many participants, or by the platform itself, so data collection can adapt to what is actually happening.
  • Because every answer carries a timestamp of when the question was generated, delivered, and answered, researchers can compute response and completion times for every question and use them as quality signals.
  • The dashboard gives researchers and participants live views of compliance, data quality, and answer patterns, allowing poor engagement to be caught and corrected during the experiment rather than after.
  • The machine-learning component, using temporal context, situational context, and demographics, can select moments likely to yield high-quality answers, with Random Forest reaching 0.758 accuracy.
  • Collected data become richer because objective sensor readings are joined with subjective answers and with metadata about the context in which each answer was given.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same QA-sensor pipeline could be reused outside research settings, e.g., in health or well-being apps, to time notifications or surveys when a user is most likely to respond carefully; this is an extension the paper does not develop.
  • Because per-participant prediction accuracy varies widely, from 65.9 to 88.6 percent, personalized models trained on an individual's own first weeks may outperform the global classifier; a direct comparison would be a natural next test.
  • The WU (tool/utensil) context dimension was not collected in the case study; adding it, or deriving it from sensors, could either sharpen the quality predictions or show that the five-dimension model is more than the four measured dimensions need.
  • If the 30-minute threshold is validated against true answer correctness on this population, the platform's quality metric could be used as a continuous monitoring signal, not just a post-hoc label.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a methodology and platform, built on the existing iLog data-collection app, intended to improve the quality and richness of combined sensor and questionnaire data by giving researchers, participants, and the platform itself more control over data collection. Four functionalities are described: a situational context model with five dimensions (where, what, internal state, who, utensils), a temporal context language called iLogCal based on iCal, a calendar-based dashboard for real-time monitoring, and a mechanism for run-time revision of the data collection plan. The platform is demonstrated on a case study with 350 University of Trento students (170 analyzed), and the paper reports an ML component that aims to predict answer quality from context features, achieving 0.758 accuracy with Random Forest. The central claims are that these functionalities enable 'much improved quality and richness' of collected data and that the ML component can predict answer quality.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, the paper would make a useful contribution to mobile sensing and EMA/ESM practice by proposing a concrete integration of sensor data, questionnaire data, and process-level meta-context in a single platform, deployed at nontrivial scale. The introduction of QA sensors, the iLogCal scheduling language, and the dashboard-based monitoring workflow are potentially reusable design artifacts. The ML evaluation uses standard classifiers with 5-fold cross-validation and a per-participant temporal split, which is more informative than a purely aggregate assessment. However, the significance is conditional on the Section 7 result actually measuring answer quality rather than merely response latency; as written, the empirical support for the headline quality-improvement claim is incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, Tables 5-8, Fig. 13] The Section 7 title and text claim the ML component predicts 'answer quality,' and the opening defines quality as 'the number of correct answers.' But the label actually used is whether the participant answered within 30 minutes, with the threshold imported from reference [67] and no validation on this dataset that this threshold tracks correctness. The paper itself, in Section 3, notes that some answers (e.g., 'Where are you?') could be validated against GPS data, but no such validation is performed. Consequently, the 0.758 accuracy in Table 8 and the per-participant results in Fig. 13 currently demonstrate predictability of response latency only. The claim in Section 7 that 'we can effectively predict if the participant can answer questions within 30 minutes, thus predicting answer quality' is unsupported. The authors should either validate the 30-minute proxy against a ground-truth correctness measure or carefully reframe the entire section and all related conclusions as predicting response time, not answer quality.
  2. [Abstract and Section 8] The abstract states that giving researchers, participants, and the platform control enables 'a much improved quality and richness of the data collected,' and the conclusion credits the platform with 'enhancing the quality of the data collection.' The case study is a deployment at scale, but it contains no baseline, control condition, or before/after comparison: there is no evidence that the adaptive scheduling, dashboard monitoring, or run-time revision actually improves answer correctness, response quality, or data richness relative to a fixed-schedule collection without these features. Even if the ML result were a valid measure of answer quality, it would at most show predictability of good response opportunities, not that the platform's interventions improve outcomes. The authors should either add a comparative evaluation or downgrade the claim to one of feasibility and monitoring capability.
  3. [Section 7, per-participant experiment] The text says the Random Forest was applied 'for each specific participant' using the first two weeks to train and the next two weeks to test, but Fig. 13 shows only 21 labeled user IDs and no information about how many participants were actually included, how they were selected, or how the accuracy values are distributed. Without this information, the statements about 'good average level of predictability' and 'does not decay much in the worst case' are not quantitatively supported. Please report the number of participants, the distribution of per-participant accuracy, and, ideally, confidence intervals or error bars.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The abstract says the case study involved 350 students, while Section 3 says the analysis uses a selection of 170 students; please clarify this discrepancy in both places.
  2. [Section 5, Figs. 4-6] The text contains typographical errors: 'Fig,4', 'Fig,5', and 'Fig,6' should be 'Fig. 4', 'Fig. 5', and 'Fig. 6', and 'Bachus-Naur Form' should be 'Backus-Naur Form'.
  3. [Section 5.2] The sentence 'The BNF of the iLogCal sensor collection is reported in Fig,5' should refer to the question collection, not the sensor collection, since the accompanying BNF defines Question collection.
  4. [Section 6, Fig. 9 and Fig. 10] The dashboard in Fig. 9 shows experiment dates 2022-04-18 to 2022-06-13, while the heatmap in Fig. 10 is described as having a missing date '2020-11-12'; please verify and align the experiment time frame.
  5. [Section 7, Table 5] The discussion under Table 5 refers to 'incorrect answers,' but the operational definition used in the analysis is the 30-minute threshold, not a correctness measure; please rephrase to avoid confusion until the proxy is validated.
  6. [References] Reference [66] has a garbled author list ('Y.R.Z.R.C.S.P.C.M.B.D.V.S.B.R.D.A. Folarin') and needs to be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ML component is a genuine held-out prediction; the 30-minute proxy label is a validity concern, not a construction.

full rationale

The paper is primarily a methodology/platform description, not a derivation. Section 7's ML component trains classifiers on temporal context, situational context, and demographics to predict a binary label (answer within 30 minutes), and evaluates with 5-fold cross-validation and a per-participant two-week holdout: "Focusing on each specific participant, we used their first two weeks of data to train the random forest algorithm and then predicted their answer quality in the subsequent two weeks." The reported 0.758 accuracy is therefore an empirical result about that label, not an identity with the features. The label itself is imported as a proxy for answer quality from reference [67]: "The goal was to predict whether the participant would answer the question within 30 minutes, this being the time within which the answer is most likely to be correct, as from [67]." Since [67] overlaps with two of the present authors (Zhao and Giunchiglia), this is a self-citation, and it is load-bearing for the wording "predicting answer quality." However, it is not circular in the mathematical sense: no equation defines answer quality as the 30-minute indicator, no parameter is fitted from this dataset and then renamed as a prediction, and the model's accuracy is measured on held-out data. The concern is construct validity (does response latency track correctness in this population?), which belongs in a correctness review rather than a circularity finding. Other self-citations (context model [31,73,74], iLog [20]) document provenance and are not used to force a conclusion. No step reduces to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on a context model from the authors' prior work and a quality proxy from reference [67]. The platform adds software artifacts, QA sensors, iLogCal, and a dashboard, which are described but not shipped as code or formally verified.

free parameters (2)
  • 30-minute answer-quality threshold = 30 minutes
    Used to binarize the quality label in Section 7. Adopted from reference [67] rather than fitted to this dataset; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • Time-of-day period boundaries = Morning 6-11, Afternoon 12-17, Evening 18-23, Night 0-5
    Hand-defined bins for the temporal context feature in Section 7; no justification or robustness check is provided.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A participant is involved in only one personal context at a time and context is tied to a single location.
    Section 4 states "We assume that me is involved in only one personal context at the time" and that moving location means changing context. This underpins the Life Sequence model and context-based scheduling.
  • domain assumption Reaction time, specifically answering within 30 minutes, is a valid proxy for answer quality.
    Section 7 relies on reference [67] for the claim that shorter reaction time implies higher quality; this external result is imported without validation on the current dataset.
  • domain assumption Self-reported answers to context questions (Where/What/Who) are treated as ground truth for the situational context.
    Sections 4 and 7 use participant labels such as "University classroom" or "meeting" to define context and quality; no annotation verification is applied, although prior work [68] is cited for fixing mislabels.
invented entities (3)
  • QA sensors
    purpose: Log events of the question-answering process (question generated, confirmation delivered, answer stored) to support scheduling and quality monitoring.
    Described in Section 3 as a new sensor type specific to iLog. They are software logging mechanisms, not independently observable entities; no separate validation artifact is provided.
  • iLogCal scheduling language
    purpose: Represent temporal context, experiment plans, and conditions for question and sensor activation.
    Introduced in Section 5 with a BNF grammar; no executable specification, schema file, or reference implementation link is provided.
  • Meta-context
    purpose: Context of the data collection process itself, as opposed to the participant's everyday context.
    Introduced in Section 1 as the paper's conceptual innovation; it is a framing concept rather than a measurable entity, and its added value is not empirically isolated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A methodology and a platform for high-quality rich personal data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKDBSFIF

@misc{pith2026250116864,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A methodology and a platform for high-quality rich personal data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKDBSFIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16864}
}
read the original abstract

In the last years the pervasive use of sensors, as they exist in smart devices, e.g., phones, watches, medical devices, has increased dramatically the availability of personal data. However, existing research on data collection primarily focuses on the objective view of reality, as provided, for instance, by sensors, often neglecting the integration of subjective human input, as provided, for instance, by user answers to questionnaires. This limits substantially the exploitability of the collected data. In this paper we present a methodology and a platform specifically designed for the collection of a combination of large-scale sensor data and qualitative human feedback. The methodology has been designed to be deployed on top, and enriches the functionalities of, an existing data collection APP, called iLog, which has been used in large scale, worldwide data collection experiments. The main goal is to put the key actors involved in an experiment, i.e., the researcher in charge, the participant, and iLog in better control of the experiment itself, thus enabling a much improved quality and richness of the data collected. The novel functionalities of the resulting platform are: (i) a time-wise representation of the situational context within which the data collection is performed, (ii) an explicit representation of the temporal context within which the data collection is performed, (iii) a calendar-based dashboard for the real-time monitoring of the data collection context(s), and, finally, (iv) a mechanism for the run-time revision of the data collection plan. The practicality and utility of the proposed functionalities are demonstrated by showing how they apply to a case study involving 350 University students.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16864 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sample questions captured in the WeNet project [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An example of everyday life sequence. 4. Representing the Situational Context The notion of context used here is an elaboration of the notion of context first introduced in [73] and further extended in [74]. As a motivating example, let us consider a small portion, of the duration of around a couple of hours, of the everyday life of the students participating in the experiment described in Section 3, as represented … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The knowledge Graph of the third situation context in Fig. 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Experiment General schedule. 5.1. Experiment General schedule The BNF of an experiment general schedule is reported in Fig,4. We have the following observations. • A user may be associated with multiple calendars; this allows a user to participate in multiple experimen…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Question collection. 5.3. Sensor data collection The BNF of the iLogCal sensor data collection is reported in Fig,6. The structure is essentially the same as that used for question collections and exploits a similar set of nonterminal symbols. <Name> is the name of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensor data collection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Using ISAC to generate a question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Quality parameters used to rank participants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dashboard: summary of an experiment A. Here, the user is presented with the quality parameters set by the researcher (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Heatmap of participants’ answers per day [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A participant’s data as seen from the Dashboard. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of answering behavior of three other participants [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The prediction results of each participant, with some participant ids made explicit. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [67]

    Bison, H

    I. Bison, H. Zhao and F. Giunchiglia, What Impacts the Quality of the User Answers when Asked about the Current Context?,arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04054 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    A Methodology and System For Big-Thick Data Collection

    I. Kayongo, H. Zhao, L. Malcotti and F. Giunchiglia, A Methodology and System For Big-Thick Data Collection, in: INFORMATIK 2024, Gesellschaft für Informatik eV, 2024, pp. 455–463, ArXiv:2404.17602v3

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Das and P.M

    T.K. Das and P.M. Kumar, Big data analytics: A framework for unstructured data analysis, International Journal of Engineering Science & Technology 5(1) (2013), 153

    2013

  4. [3]

    Geertz, Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture, in: The cultural geography reader, Routledge, 2008, pp

    C. Geertz, Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture, in: The cultural geography reader, Routledge, 2008, pp. 41–51

    2008

  5. [4]

    Bornakke and B.L

    T. Bornakke and B.L. Due, Big–Thick Blending: A method for mixing analytical insights from big and thick data sources, Big Data & Society 5(1) (2018), 2053951718765026

    2018

  6. [5]

    D’ignazio and L.F

    C. D’ignazio and L.F. Klein, Data feminism, MIT press, 2023

    2023

  7. [6]

    Bogers, J

    S. Bogers, J. Frens, J. Van Kollenburg, E. Deckers and C. Hummels, Connected baby bottle: A design case study towards a framework for data-enabled design, in: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems, 2016, pp. 301–311

    2016

  8. [7]

    Bogers, J

    S. Bogers, J. Van Kollenburg, E. Deckers, J. Frens and C. Hummels, A situated exploration of designing for personal health ecosystems through data-enabled design, in: Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 2018, pp. 109–120

    2018

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Bontempelli, M.R

    A. Bontempelli, M.R. Britez, X. Li, H. Zhao, L. Erculiani, S. Teso, A. Passerini and F. Giunchiglia, Lifelong Personal Context Recognition,

  2. [9]

    Osman, R

    N. Osman, R. Chenu-Abente, Q. Shen, C. Sierra and F. Giunchiglia, Empowering Users in Online Open Communities, SN Comput. Sci. 2(4) (2021), 338. doi:10.1007/s42979-021-00714-5

    2021 doi

  3. [10]

    Fausto, B

    G. Fausto, B. Ivano, B. Matteo, C.-A. Ronald, R. Marcelo, Z. Mattia, G. Can, V . Giuseppe, D. Amalia, K. Peter, G. Amarsanaa, C. Altan- gerel, G. George, S. Sally, B. Miriam, C. Luca, H. Alethia, Z. Jose Luis and G.-P. Lakmal Meegahapola; Daniel, A worldwide diversity pilot on...

    2020

  4. [11]

    Giunchiglia and X

    F. Giunchiglia and X. Li, Big-Thick Data generation via reference and personal context unification, in: ECAI 2024, IOS Press, 2024, pp. 1975–1984

    2024

  5. [12]

    Intille, J

    S.S. Intille, J. Rondoni, C. Kukla, I. Ancona and L. Bao, A context-aware experience sampling tool, in: CHI’03 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, 2003, pp. 972–973

    2003

  6. [13]

    Runyan, T.A

    J.D. Runyan, T.A. Steenbergh, C. Bainbridge, D.A. Daugherty, L. Oke and B.N. Fry, A smartphone ecological momentary assessment/in- tervention “app” for collecting real-time data and promoting self-awareness, PloS one 8(8) (2013), e71325

    2013

  7. [14]

    R. Wang, F. Chen, Z. Chen, T. Li, G. Harari, S. Tignor, X. Zhou, D. Ben-Zeev and A.T. Campbell, StudentLife: assessing mental health, academic performance and behavioral trends of college students using smartphones, in: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conferenc...

    2014

  8. [15]

    Huang, H

    Y . Huang, H. Xiong, K. Leach, Y . Zhang, P. Chow, K. Fua, B.A. Teachman and L.E. Barnes, Assessing social anxiety using GPS trajectories and point-of-interest data, in: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 2016, pp. 898–903

    2016

  9. [16]

    Zhang, Q

    W. Zhang, Q. Shen, S. Teso, B. Lepri, A. Passerini, I. Bison and F. Giunchiglia, Putting human behavior predictability in context,EPJ Data Science 10(1) (2021), 42

    2021

  10. [17]

    Chen, R.H

    H. Chen, R.H. Chiang and V .C. Storey, Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact,MIS quarterly (2012), 1165–1188

    2012

  11. [18]

    Davenport and J

    T.H. Davenport and J. Dyché, Big data in big companies, International Institute for Analytics 3(1–31) (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Boyd and K

    D. Boyd and K. Crawford, Critical questions for big data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon, Informa- tion, communication & society 15(5) (2012), 662–679

    2012

  13. [20]

    M. Zeni, I. Zaihrayeu and F. Giunchiglia, Multi-device activity logging, in: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing: adjunct publication, 2014, pp. 299–302

    2014

  14. [21]

    Maddalena, L.-D

    E. Maddalena, L.-D. Ibáñez, E. Simperl, R. Gomer, M. Zeni, D. Song and F. Giunchiglia, Hybrid Human Machine workflows for mobility management, in: Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference, ACM, 2019, pp. 102–109

    2019

  15. [22]

    Bison, F

    I. Bison, F. Giunchiglia, M. Zeni, E. Bignotti, M. Busso and R. Chenu-Abente, Trento 2018—an extended pilot on the daily routines of university students (2021), DataSet vailable at https://datascientia.disi.unitn.it

    2021

  16. [23]

    M. Zeni, I. Bison, B. Gauckler, R. Fernando and F. Giunchiglia, Improving time use measurement with personal big data collection - the experience of the European Big Data Hackathon 2019., Journal of Official Statistics (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Giunchiglia, I

    F. Giunchiglia, I. Bison, M. Busso, R. Chenu-Abente, M. Rodas, M. Zeni, C. Gunel, G. Veltri, A. De Götzen, P. Kun et al., A worldwide diversity pilot on daily routines and social practices (2020) (2021), DataSet vailable at https://datascientia.disi.unitn.it

    2020

  18. [25]

    Bontempelli, S

    A. Bontempelli, S. Teso, F. Giunchiglia and A. Passerini, Learning in the wild with incremental skeptical Gaussian processes, in: Proceed- ings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, 2021, pp. 2886–2892. 20 I...

    2021

  19. [26]

    K. Assi, L. Meegahapola, W. Droz, P. Kun, A. De Götzen, M. Bidoglia, S. Stares, G. Gaskell, A. Chagnaa, A. Ganbold et al., Complex daily activities, country-level diversity, and smartphone sensing: A study in denmark, italy, mongolia, paraguay, and uk, in:Proceedings of the 20...

    2023

  20. [27]

    Meegahapola, W

    L. Meegahapola, W. Droz, P. Kun, A. De Götzen, C. Nutakki, S. Diwakar, S.R. Correa, D. Song, H. Xu, M. Bidoglia et al., Generalization and personalization of mobile sensing-based mood inference models: an analysis of college students in eight countries, Proceedings of the ACM ...

    2023

  21. [28]

    Michael, I

    L. Michael, I. Bison, M. Busso, L. Cernuzzi, A. de Götzen, S. Diwakar, K. Gal, S. Ganbold, G. Gaskell, D. Gatica-Perez, J. Heesen, D. Miorandi, N. Osman, S. Ruiz-Correa, L. Schelenz, A. Segal, C. Sierra, H. Xu and F. Giunchiglia, Towards Open Diversity-Aware Social Interaction...

    2025

  22. [29]

    Busso, A

    M. Busso, A. Bontempelli, L. Javier Malcotti, L. Meegahapola, P. Kun, S. Diwakar, C. Nutakki, M. Rodas Britez, H. Xu, D. Song, S. Ruiz- Correa, A.-R. Mendoza-Lara, G. Gaskell, S. Stares, M. Bidoglia, A. Ganbold, A. Chagnaa, L. Cernuzzi, A. Hume, R. Chenu-Abente, R. Alia Asiku,...

    2025

  23. [30]

    McCarthy, Generality in artificial intelligence, Communications of the ACM 30(12) (1987), 1030–1035

    J. McCarthy, Generality in artificial intelligence, Communications of the ACM 30(12) (1987), 1030–1035

    1987

  24. [31]

    Giunchiglia, Contextual reasoning, Epistemologia, special issue: I Linguaggi e le Macchine 16 (1993), 345–364

    F. Giunchiglia, Contextual reasoning, Epistemologia, special issue: I Linguaggi e le Macchine 16 (1993), 345–364

    1993

  25. [32]

    Schilit and M.M

    B.N. Schilit and M.M. Theimer, Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts, IEEE network 8(5) (1994), 22–32

    1994

  26. [33]

    Brown, J.D

    P.J. Brown, J.D. Bovey and X. Chen, Context-aware applications: from the laboratory to the marketplace, IEEE personal communications 4(5) (1997), 58–64

    1997

  27. [34]

    Dey, G.D

    A.K. Dey, G.D. Abowd and A. Wood, CyberDesk: A framework for providing self-integrating context-aware services, Knowledge-based systems 11(1) (1998), 3–13

    1998

  28. [35]

    Abowd, A.K

    G.D. Abowd, A.K. Dey, P.J. Brown, N. Davies, M. Smith and P. Steggles, Towards a better understanding of context and context-awareness, in: International symposium on handheld and ubiquitous computing, Springer, 1999, pp. 304–307

    1999

  29. [36]

    Mishra, B

    V . Mishra, B. Lowens, S. Lord, K. Caine and D. Kotz, Investigating contextual cues as indicators for EMA delivery, in: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Symposium on W...

    2017

  30. [37]

    Mehrotra, V

    A. Mehrotra, V . Pejovic, J. Vermeulen, R. Hendley and M. Musolesi, My phone and me: understanding people’s receptivity to mobile notifications, in: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2016, pp. 1021–1032

    2016

  31. [38]

    J. Sun, M. Rhemtulla and S. Vazire, Eavesdropping on missing data: What are university students doing when they miss experience sampling reports?, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 47(11) (2021), 1535–1549

    2021

  32. [39]

    Ye and P.E

    L.R. Ye and P.E. Johnson, The impact of explanation facilities on user acceptance of expert systems advice,Mis Quarterly (1995), 157–172

    1995

  33. [40]

    Afolabi and P

    A.O. Afolabi and P. Toivanen, Improving the design of a recommendation system using evaluation criteria and metrics as a guide, Journal of Systems and Information Technology 21(3) (2019), 304–324

    2019

  34. [41]

    Lee and A.K

    M.L. Lee and A.K. Dey, Sensor-based observations of daily living for aging in place, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 19(1) (2015), 27–43

    2015

  35. [42]

    Berke, T

    E.M. Berke, T. Choudhury, S. Ali and M. Rabbi, Objective measurement of sociability and activity: mobile sensing in the community, The Annals of Family Medicine 9(4) (2011), 344–350

    2011

  36. [43]

    Dunton, Y

    G.F. Dunton, Y . Liao, K. Kawabata and S. Intille, Momentary assessment of adults’ physical activity and sedentary behavior: feasibility and validity, Frontiers in Psychology3 (2012), 260

    2012

  37. [44]

    Liao, S.S

    Y . Liao, S.S. Intille and G.F. Dunton, Using ecological momentary assessment to understand where and with whom adults’ physical and sedentary activity occur, International journal of behavioral medicine 22 (2015), 51–61

    2015

  38. [45]

    Rabbi, M.H

    M. Rabbi, M.H. Aung, M. Zhang and T. Choudhury, MyBehavior: automatic personalized health feedback from user behaviors and prefer- ences using smartphones, in: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing , 2015, pp. 707–718

    2015

  39. [46]

    Intille, The precision medicine initiative and pervasive health research, IEEE Pervasive Computing 15(1) (2016), 88–91

    S. Intille, The precision medicine initiative and pervasive health research, IEEE Pervasive Computing 15(1) (2016), 88–91

    2016

  40. [47]

    Do and D

    T.M.T. Do and D. Gatica-Perez, Contextual conditional models for smartphone-based human mobility prediction, in: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on ubiquitous computing, 2012, pp. 163–172

    2012

  41. [48]

    Farrahi and D

    K. Farrahi and D. Gatica-Perez, Discovering routines from large-scale human locations using probabilistic topic models,ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST)2(1) (2011), 1–27

    2011

  42. [49]

    Harari, N.D

    G.M. Harari, N.D. Lane, R. Wang, B.S. Crosier, A.T. Campbell and S.D. Gosling, Using smartphones to collect behavioral data in psycho- logical science: Opportunities, practical considerations, and challenges, Perspectives on Psychological Science 11(6) (2016), 838–854

    2016

  43. [50]

    Wang, G.M

    W. Wang, G.M. Harari, R. Wang, S.R. Müller, S. Mirjafari, K. Masaba and A.T. Campbell, Sensing behavioral change over time: Us- ing within-person variability features from mobile sensing to predict personality traits, Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and...

    2018

  44. [51]

    Peltonen, P

    E. Peltonen, P. Sharmila, K.O. Asare, A. Visuri, E. Lagerspetz and D. Ferreira, When phones get personal: Predicting Big Five personality traits from application usage, Pervasive and Mobile Computing 69 (2020), 101269

    2020

  45. [52]

    Bogomolov, B

    A. Bogomolov, B. Lepri, M. Ferron, F. Pianesi and A. Pentland, Daily stress recognition from mobile phone data, weather conditions and individual traits, in: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Multimedia, 2014, pp. 477–486

    2014

  46. [53]

    R. Wang, W. Wang, A. DaSilva, J.F. Huckins, W.M. Kelley, T.F. Heatherton and A.T. Campbell, Tracking depression dynamics in college students using mobile phone and wearable sensing,Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies 2(1) (2018),...

    2018

  47. [54]

    W. Wang, S. Mirjafari, G. Harari, D. Ben-Zeev, R. Brian, T. Choudhury, M. Hauser, J. Kane, K. Masaba, S. Nepal et al., Social sensing: assessing social functioning of patients living with schizophrenia using mobile phone sensing, in:Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on hu...

    2020

  48. [55]

    Joki, J.A

    A. Joki, J.A. Burke and D. Estrin, Campaignr: a framework for participatory data collection on mobile phones,UCLA: Center for Embedded Network Sensing (2007)

    2007

  49. [56]

    Gohil, S

    R. Gohil, S. Sharma, S. Sachdeva, S. Gupta and M.S. Dhillon, Epicollect 5: a free, fully customizable mobile-based application for data collection in clinical research, J Postgrad Med Educ Res 54(4) (2020), 248–51

    2020

  50. [57]

    Miluzzo, N.D

    E. Miluzzo, N.D. Lane, K. Fodor, R. Peterson, H. Lu, M. Musolesi, S.B. Eisenman, X. Zheng and A.T. Campbell, Sensing meets mobile social networks: the design, implementation and evaluation of the cenceme application, in: Proceedings of the 6th ACM conference on Embedded networ...

    2008

  51. [58]

    Aharony, W

    N. Aharony, W. Pan, C. Ip, I. Khayal and A. Pentland, Social fMRI: Investigating and shaping social mechanisms in the real world, Pervasive and mobile computing 7(6) (2011), 643–659

    2011

  52. [59]

    Dickerson, E

    R.F. Dickerson, E. Hoque, I.A. Emi and J.A. Stankovic, Empath2: A flexible web and cloud-based home health care monitoring system, in: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  53. [60]

    Lathia, V

    N. Lathia, V . Pejovic, K.K. Rachuri, C. Mascolo, M. Musolesi and P.J. Rentfrow, Smartphones for large-scale behavior change interventions, IEEE Pervasive Computing 12(3) (2013), 66–73

    2013

  54. [61]

    Bachmann, R

    A. Bachmann, R. Zetzsche, A. Schankin, T. Riedel, M. Beigl, M. Reichert, P. Santangelo and U. Ebner-Priemer, ESMAC: a web-based configurator for context-aware experience sampling apps in ambulatory assessment, in:Proceedings of the 5th EAI International Conference on Wireless ...

    2015

  55. [62]

    Ferreira, V

    D. Ferreira, V . Kostakos and A.K. Dey, AW ARE: mobile context instrumentation framework,Frontiers in ICT 2 (2015), 6

    2015

  56. [63]

    Stavropoulos, G

    T.G. Stavropoulos, G. Meditskos and I. Kompatsiaris, DemaWare2: Integrating sensors, multimedia and semantic analysis for the ambient care of dementia, Pervasive and Mobile Computing 34 (2017), 126–145

    2017

  57. [64]

    Lind, L.E

    M.N. Lind, L.E. Kahn, R. Crowley, W. Reed, G. Wicks and N.B. Allen, Reintroducing the effortless assessment research system (EARS), JMIR Mental Health 10(1) (2023), e38920

    2023

  58. [65]

    Onnela, C

    J.-P. Onnela, C. Dixon, K. Griffin, T. Jaenicke, L. Minowada, S. Esterkin, A. Siu, J. Zagorsky and E. Jones, Beiwe: A data collection platform for high-throughput digital phenotyping, Journal of Open Source Software 6(68) (2021), 3417. doi:10.21105/joss.03417

    2021 doi

  59. [66]

    Folarin, RADAR-Base: Open Source Mobile Health Platform for Collecting, Monitoring, and Ana- lyzing Data Using Sensors, Wearables, and Mobile Devices, JMIR Mhealth Uhealth (2019)

    Y .R.Z.R.C.S.P.C.M.B.D.V .S.B.R.D.A. Folarin, RADAR-Base: Open Source Mobile Health Platform for Collecting, Monitoring, and Ana- lyzing Data Using Sensors, Wearables, and Mobile Devices, JMIR Mhealth Uhealth (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    M. Zeni, W. Zhang, E. Bignotti, A. Passerini and F. Giunchiglia, Fixing Mislabeling by Human Annotators Leveraging Conflict Resolution and Prior Knowledge, Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies3(1) (2019), 32

    2019

  61. [69]

    Giunchiglia, M

    F. Giunchiglia, M. Zeni, E. Bignotti and W. Zhang, Assessing Annotation Consistency in the Wild, in:2018 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), IEEE, 2018, pp. 561–566

    2018

  62. [70]

    Giunchiglia, M

    F. Giunchiglia, M. Zeni, E. Gobbi, E. Bignotti and I. Bison, Mobile social media and academic performance, in: International conference on social informatics, Springer, Cham, 2017, pp. 3–13

    2017

  63. [71]

    Kasinidou, S

    M. Kasinidou, S. Kleanthous, M. Busso, M. Rodas, J. Otterbacher and F. Giunchiglia, Artificial intelligence in everyday life 2.0: Educating university students from different majors, in: Proceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V . 1, ...

    2024

  64. [72]

    X. Li, M. Rodas-Britez, M. Busso and F. Giunchiglia, Representing Habits as Streams of Situational Contexts, in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops: CAiSE 2022 International Workshops, Leuven, Belgium, June 6–10, 2022, Proceedings, Springer, 2022, pp. 86–92

    2022

  65. [73]

    Giunchiglia, E

    F. Giunchiglia, E. Bignotti and M. Zeni, Personal context modelling and annotation, in: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops), IEEE, 2017, pp. 117–122

    2017

  66. [74]

    Xiaoyue, R.B

    L. Xiaoyue, R.B. Marcelo, B. Matteo and G. Fausto, Representing Habits as Streams of Situational Contexts, in: Advanced Information Systems Engineering Workshops: CAiSE 2022 International Workshops, 2022

    2022

  67. [75]

    Giunchiglia, X

    F. Giunchiglia, X. Li, M. Busso and M. Rodas-Britez, A Context Model for Personal Data Streams, in:Web and Big Data: 6th International Joint Conference, APWeb-WAIM 2022, Nanjing, China, November 25–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part I, Springer, 2023, pp. 37–44

    2022

  68. [76]

    Bradburn, S

    N.M. Bradburn, S. Sudman and B. Wansink, Asking questions: the definitive guide to questionnaire design–for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires, John Wiley & Sons, 2004

    2004

  69. [77]

    Bontempelli, S

    A. Bontempelli, S. Teso, F. Giunchiglia and A. Passerini, Learning in the Wild with Incremental Skeptical Gaussian Processes, in: Pro- ceedings of the 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    Furnham, Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation, Personality and individual differences7(3) (1986), 385–400

    A. Furnham, Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation, Personality and individual differences7(3) (1986), 385–400

    1986

  71. [79]

    Porta, A dictionary of epidemiology, Oxford university press, 2014

    M. Porta, A dictionary of epidemiology, Oxford university press, 2014

    2014

  72. [80]

    Schneier, Secrets and lies: digital security in a networked world, John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    B. Schneier, Secrets and lies: digital security in a networked world, John Wiley & Sons, 2015

    2015

  73. [81]

    van Berkel, J

    N. van Berkel, J. Goncalves, P. Koval, S. Hosio, T. Dingler, D. Ferreira and V . Kostakos, Context-informed scheduling and analysis: improving accuracy of mobile self-reports, in: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2019, pp. 1–12

    2019

  74. [82]

    Bison and H

    I. Bison and H. Zhao, Factors Impacting the Quality of User Answers on Smartphones, in: Proceedings of the Second International Con- ference on Hybrid Human-Machine Intelligence (HHAI 23), V ol. 3456, 2023, pp. 208 – 213–

    2023

  75. [83]

    Blau and O.D

    P.M. Blau and O.D. Duncan, The American occupational structure. (1967). 22 I. Kayongo et al. /

    1967

  76. [84]

    Zhang, M

    W. Zhang, M. Zeni, A. Passerini and F. Giunchiglia, Skeptical Learning—An Algorithm and a Platform for Dealing with Mislabeling in Personal Context Recognition, Algorithms 15(4) (2022), 109

    2022

  77. [85]

    Zhang, Personal Context Recognition via Skeptical Learning., in: IJCAI, 2019, pp

    W. Zhang, Personal Context Recognition via Skeptical Learning., in: IJCAI, 2019, pp. 6482–6483

    2019

  78. [2022]

    https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10123

    doi:10.48550/ARXIV .2205.10123. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10123

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.