Pith. sign in

REVIEW 107 references

A Turing Test for ''Localness'': Conceptualizing, Defining, and Recognizing Localness in People and Machines

T0 review · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that localness is a socially constructed identity that is easier to affirm than to refute: people reliably recognize locals, misclassify most nonlocals as local, and judge AI chatbots nonlocal for lacking the same…

desk verdict Nice empirical study of how people judge localness, but the flagship asymmetry may be a response-bias artifact from instructing all chat partners to act local. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07282 v1 pith:D6MXL6E6 submitted 2025-05-12 cs.HC cs.CY

Zihan Gao , Justin Cranshaw , Jacob Thebault-Spieker This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords localnesssenseofplacedwellingimitationgamelargelanguagemodelssensemakinglocation-basedservicesrecognition
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 tries to establish what "localness" is and whether people—or AI chatbots—can convincingly demonstrate it in conversation. Drawing on the philosophical notion of dwelling, the authors argue that being local is not a fact about where you live but a socially constructed identity built from knowledge of a place, physical presence, and relational belonging. Using a chat-based Localness Imitation Game with 230 participants, they find that people reliably identify locals (22 of 27 and 15 of 17 in the two key conditions) but consistently fail to identify nonlocals (8 of 18 and 3 of 23), concluding that localness is an affirmative status that must be actively demonstrated and socially recognized rather than a default whose absence can be detected. They also report that large language models are usually perceived as nonlocal, judged much like nonlocal humans, and that accurate judgments come from cross-referencing knowledge and emotional cues. If right, this reframes how location-based platforms should verify local participation and what it would take for AI to pass as a genuine local.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is the "Localness Imitation Game," a chat-based experimental setup modeled on the classic imitation game and the games-with-a-purpose paradigm: a Localness Decider questions a chat partner—local human, nonlocal human, or a large language model—for at least three rounds, unobtrusively slowed to human typing speeds, then judges both the partner's localness and whether it is human. The analytical engine is a hierarchical coding framework of localness derived from participants' own open-ended definitions: three domains (Cognitive, Physical, Relational), seven dimensions, 24 components, and 88 sub-components, which the paper uses to trace what cues participants gather, filter, and cite in their judgments. The argument is carried by the contrast between positive recognition (accurate on locals) and negative recognition (near-chance on nonlocals), with Bayesian zero-inflated negative binomial models of questioning behavior and an XGBoost model with SHAP analysis (83% accuracy, AUC 0.91) identifying Knowledge and Emotional features as the strongest predictors of accurate judgments.

What would settle it

A direct test is to rerun the same chat game with ground truth assigned by community recognition instead of self-report—for example, having a panel of established residents vote on whether each chat partner counts as local—and compare the accuracy pattern. If accuracy on nonlocals rises toward accuracy on locals under community-assigned labels, the asymmetric-recognition finding is an artifact of the labeling method; if the near-chance performance on nonlocals persists, the affirmative-status interpretation is supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is an asymmetry in localness recognition: people are significantly more accurate at judging that someone is local than at judging that someone is not, and this asymmetry reveals what localness is. Local deciders correctly identified local partners in 22 of 27 conversations and nonlocal deciders in 15 of 17, but local deciders identified only 8 of 18 nonlocal partners and nonlocal deciders only 3 of 23—accuracy on nonlocals is near chance. The authors interpret this as evidence that localness is an affirmative, socially conferred identity: it is signaled by a rich, consistent set of positive markers (insider recommendations, emotional attachment, active community participation, experience-based knowledge) and must be actively demonstrated and recognized, whereas nonlocal status has no comparable positive signal to detect. The same standard explains the LLM results: chatbots that produced fluent, factually local-seeming content were consistently judged nonlocal because they lacked relational depth, personal memory, and contextually appropriate behavior—the very cues that make localness perceptible in humans.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ground-truth labels "local" and "nonlocal"—assigned by each participant's self-report plus a sense-of-place survey—match the socially recognized localness the paper claims people are detecting, so that if self-identification diverges from community recognition, every accuracy figure and the asymmetry itself are measured against the wrong baseline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Platforms that verify localness by address or check-in data are testing the wrong side of the asymmetry: they confirm presence, but human judgment shows that what makes a local credible is demonstrated knowledge, emotional attachment, and community participation.
  • Because participants read LLMs and nonlocal humans through the same lens—judging both nonlocal on relational and experiential grounds—improving AI localness will require training on lived-experience and community data, not merely larger factual corpora.
  • Detection systems built around knowledge depth and emotional signals rather than residence length or birthplace should improve accuracy, since those are the features that predicted correct judgments.
  • Correct judgments came from cross-referencing multiple cues while incorrect ones relied on single markers, so tools that scaffold multi-cue verification could reduce the systematic misclassification of nonlocals.
  • The affirmative-status finding implies localness is conferred by community recognition, so verification built on vouching or sustained interaction patterns may be more faithful to how people actually decide than one-shot knowledge quizzes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested extension: the affirm-easier-than-refute asymmetry may generalize to other socially conferred identities (being a "regular," being an expert), since refutation requires proving the absence of a property that is itself fuzzy and positively defined.
  • The paper's ground truth is self-report plus a sense-of-place survey; a natural follow-up would test whether community recognition (other residents voting on who counts) reproduces the same asymmetry or changes the nonlocal accuracy figures.
  • As LLMs acquire personal memory and temporal continuity, the human–nonlocal boundary may erode before the local–nonlocal boundary does; the paper's framework predicts that relational depth, not factual accuracy, will be the last barrier to AI passing as local.
  • The single-community upper-Midwest sample leaves open whether the three-domain weighting generalizes; a replication in a city with different migration or cultural patterns would show whether locals' relational emphasis is universal or context-bound.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claim that localness is an affirmative status rests on an accuracy asymmetry that is built into the experiment's instruction to nonlocal chat partners to 'convincingly portray a local resident.'

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2.1 (Chat Interface); Section 4.3.1; Section 5.2.1]
    "The CP, on their chat interface, is instructed to convincingly portray a local resident of the LD’s city and state... when the chat partner was not local, both locals and nonlocals frequently incorrectly judged their nonlocal chat partner to be local. ... The inability to identify nonlocals suggests that localness is something that is bestowed rather than withheld."

    The negative class in the localness judgment task was instructed to perform the positive class: every nonlocal CP had to 'convincingly portray a local resident.' Therefore the LD's difficulty in identifying nonlocal CPs is entailed by the experimental operationalization—nonlocal CPs' observable behavior was generated to hide nonlocal status. The paper then treats this instructed difficulty as evidence that nonlocalness has no definitive markers and that localness is an affirmative conferred status. The asymmetry (high true positives for locals, low true positives for nonlocals) would be expected from any task in which the nonlocal condition is a deliberate impersonation of localness; it does not uniquely measure a property of localness.

full rationale

The paper's central interpretive leap is the one flagged above: the low recall for nonlocal partners is used to infer that localness is an affirmative, bestowed identity, but the study design told nonlocal partners to conceal their nonlocalness and role-play localness. That makes the observed 'high precision/low recall' pattern, and the resulting asymmetry argument, substantially self-definitional: the nonlocal class was behaviorally defined as 'someone trying to pass as local.' The remaining analyses—LLM perception, sensemaking coding, and XGBoost/SHAP prediction—are not circular in the same way: they use independent ground-truth labels and externally specified LLM prompts, and the SHAP results describe in-sample feature importance rather than a claim forced by definition. There are self-citations ([22], [93] include the present authors), but they are not load-bearing for the core empirical findings. Because the affirmative-status conclusion rests on the instruction-induced asymmetry, the circularity is partial but real, warranting a score of 6 rather than a lower score.

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

The paper's central claims rest on a self-report-derived ground truth, a conversation-only setting, and a coding framework built from the same population being studied. No numerical constants are fit to the headline accuracy results, which helps circularity, but the RQ5 model has implicit tuning and selection-based training features. The paper does not introduce physical entities or forces, only an experimental paradigm and an analytic framework.

free parameters (3)
  • XGBoost hyperparameters = not reported
    Grid search with three-fold cross-validation is mentioned, but the chosen hyperparameters are not disclosed, so the reported 83%/0.91 performance cannot be independently tuned or evaluated.
  • LLM response delay parameters = mean 12 s, sigma 3.25
    Calibrated from pilot typing patterns; this is a modeling choice that affects the human-likeness of LLM partners and therefore the LLM recognition results.
  • Sensemaking framework components = 3 domains, 7 dimensions, 24 components, 88 sub-components
    The hierarchical coding framework is induced from participants' open-ended definitions and then applied to conversations. It is not a numerical fit, but it is an instrument constructed from the same population whose judgments it later explains.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Self-reported local/nonlocal status plus the sense-of-place scale is a valid ground truth for true localness.
    Stated in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.2; all accuracy measures and comparisons depend on this labeling.
  • domain assumption Conversation-based chat is a sufficient elicitation context for localness recognition.
    The authors acknowledge in Section 5.6 that conversation may not capture behavioral, spatial, and community-based indicators.
  • domain assumption The recruited participants are able and willing to convincingly portray a local resident; LLM prompts are adequate to make the LLM condition comparable.
    The CP instructions and LLM prompt design (Appendix A) assume that nonlocal humans and LLMs attempt to pass as local, and that differential success is due to localness rather than motivation or prompt quality.
invented entities (2)
  • The 'Localness Imitation Game' experimental framework
    purpose: A structured chat paradigm to elicit and measure localness recognition across human and LLM partners.
    The framework is introduced by this paper; its validity is demonstrated mainly through the reported pilot and internal results, not through an external benchmark.
  • The three-domain localness framework (Cognitive, Physical, Relational)
    purpose: A coding and analysis scheme for participants' definitions, conversation questions, selected statements, and judgment rationales.
    The framework is derived from the same participants whose behavior it is used to analyze, so it lacks independent evidence outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Turing Test for ''Localness'': Conceptualizing, Defining, and Recognizing Localness in People and Machines." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6MXL6E6

@misc{pith2026250507282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Turing Test for ''Localness'': Conceptualizing, Defining, and Recognizing Localness in People and Machines},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6MXL6E6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07282}
}
read the original abstract

As digital platforms increasingly mediate interactions tied to place, ensuring genuine local participation is essential for maintaining trust and credibility in location-based services, community-driven platforms, and civic engagement systems. However, localness is a social and relational identity shaped by knowledge, participation, and community recognition. Drawing on the German philosopher Heidegger's concept of dwelling -- which extends beyond physical presence to encompass meaningful connection to place -- we investigate how people conceptualize and evaluate localness in both human and artificial agents. Using a chat-based interaction paradigm inspired by Turing's Imitation Game and Von Ahn's Games With A Purpose, we engaged 230 participants in conversations designed to examine the cues people rely on to assess local presence. Our findings reveal a multi-dimensional framework of localness, highlighting differences in how locals and nonlocals emphasize various aspects of local identity. We show that people are significantly more accurate in recognizing locals than nonlocals, suggesting that localness is an affirmative status requiring active demonstration rather than merely the absence of nonlocal traits. Additionally, we identify conditions under which artificial agents are perceived as local and analyze participants' sensemaking strategies in evaluating localness. Through predictive modeling, we determine key factors that drive accurate localness judgments. By bridging theoretical perspectives on human-place relationships with practical challenges in digital environments, our work informs the design of location-based services that foster meaningful local engagement. Our findings contribute to a broader understanding of localness as a dynamic and relational construct, reinforcing the importance of dwelling as a process of belonging, recognition, and engagement with place.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07282 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. System overview 3.2.1 Core System Architecture. The system comprises five integrated components ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Frequency of Localness Domains and Dimensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of LDś Judgments in Different Settings [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different Category Distributions in LD’s Questions during Conversations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of Category Distributions in LD’s Localness Judgment Reason [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of Category Distributions in LD’s Reasons for Their Local and Nonlocal Localness Judgment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: XGBoost ROC Curve penalized mean score of 1.0. Participants frequently relied on contextual accuracy as a determinant of localness. For example, P32 flagged an incorrect time for a local event as evidence that their chat partner was non-local: “It said it was going to …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SHAP analysis results showing the importance of different factors in localness prediction at three levels: (a) individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Different Category Distributions in LD’s Questions during Selected Conversations for Localness Judgment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Different Category Distributions in LD’s Questions during Selected Conversations for LLM Judgment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anurag Acharya, Kartik Talamadupula, and Mark A Finlayson. 2020. Towards an atlas of cultural commonsense for machine reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.05664 (2020)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Luca Maria Aiello, Rossano Schifanella, Daniele Quercia, and Francesco Aletta. 2016. Chatty maps: constructing sound maps of urban areas from social media data. Royal Society open science 3, 3 (2016), 150690

    2016

  3. [3]

    Asam Almohamed and Dhaval Vyas. 2016. Designing for the Marginalized: A step towards understanding the lives of refugees and asylum seekers. In Proceedings of the 2016 acm conference companion publication on designing interactive systems . 165–168

    2016

  4. [4]

    Adriana Alvarado Garcia, Karla Badillo-Urquiola, Mayra D Barrera Machuca, Franceli L Cibrian, Marianela Ciolfi Felice, Laura S Gaytán-Lugo, Diego Gómez-Zará, Carla F Griggio, Monica Perusquia-Hernandez, Soraia Silva-Prietch, et al . 2020. Fostering HCI Research in, by, and for Latin America. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factor...

    2020

  5. [5]

    Mara Balestrini, Yvonne Rogers, Carolyn Hassan, Javi Creus, Martha King, and Paul Marshall. 2017. A city in common: a framework to orchestrate large-scale citizen engagement around urban issues. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI conference on human factors in computing , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2018. 36 Trovato et al. systems. 2282–2294

    2017

  6. [6]

    Jack Bandy and Brent Hecht. 2021. Errors in Geotargeted Display Advertising: Good News for Local Journalism? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–19

    2021

  7. [7]

    Roy F Baumeister and Mark R Leary. 2017. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal development (2017), 57–89

    2017

  8. [8]

    Emily M Bender, Timnit Gebru, Angelina McMillan-Major, and Shmargaret Shmitchell. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency . 610–623

    2021

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Antoine Bosselut, Hannah Rashkin, Maarten Sap, Chaitanya Malaviya, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Yejin Choi. 2019. COMET: Commonsense transformers for automatic knowledge graph construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.05317 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lauren Bradel, Chris North, and Leanna House. 2014. Multi-model semantic interaction for text analytics. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (V AST). IEEE, 163–172

    2014

  3. [11]

    Joseph Chee Chang, Amy X Zhang, Jonathan Bragg, Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Doug Downey, and Daniel S Weld. 2023. Citesee: Augmenting citations in scientific papers with persistent and personalized historical context. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Eunsol Choi, He He, Mohit Iyyer, Mark Yatskar, Wen-tau Yih, Yejin Choi, Percy Liang, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2018. QuAC: Question answering in context. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.07036 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ashley Colley, Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Allen Yilun Lin, Donald Degraen, Benjamin Fischman, Jonna Häkkilä, Kate Kuehl, Valentina Nisi, Nuno Jardim Nunes, Nina Wenig, et al. 2017. The geography of Pokémon GO: beneficial and problematic effects on places and movement. In Proceedi...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Justin Cranshaw, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, and SA Needham. 2016. Journeys & notes: Designing social computing for non-places. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4722–4733

    2016

  7. [15]

    Justin Cranshaw, Raz Schwartz, Jason Hong, and Norman Sadeh. 2012. The livehoods project: Utilizing social media to understand the dynamics of a city. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 6. 58–65

    2012

  8. [16]

    Brenda Dervin. 1983. AN OVERVIEW OF SENSE-MAKING RESEARCH: CONCEPTS, METHODS AND RESULTS TO DATE. In the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association

    1983

  9. [17]

    Brenda Dervin. 1992. From the mind’s eye of the user: The sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology. Qualitative research in information management 9, 1 (1992), 61–84

    1992

  10. [18]

    Nishchal Deshpande, Bauke de Vries, and Jos P van Leeuwen. 2005. Building and supporting shared understanding in collaborative problem-solving. In Ninth International Conference on Information Visualisation (IV’05) . IEEE, 737–742

    2005

  11. [19]

    Hinnerk Eißfeldt. 2019. Supporting urban air mobility with citizen participatory noise sensing: A concept. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference. 93–95

    2019

  12. [20]

    Gregory Ference, Mao Ye, and Wang-Chien Lee. 2013. Location recommendation for out-of-town users in location-based social networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM international conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 721–726

    2013

  13. [21]

    Eureka Foong, Darren Gergle, and Elizabeth M Gerber. 2017. Novice and expert sensemaking of crowdsourced design feedback. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 1, CSCW (2017), 1–18

    2017

  14. [22]

    Zihan Gao, Justin Cranshaw, and Jacob Thebault-Spieker. 2024. Journeying Through Sense of Place with Mental Maps: Characterizing Changing Spatial Understanding and Sense of Place During Migration for Work.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, CSCW2 (2024), 1–31

    2024

  15. [23]

    Andrew Garbett, Rob Comber, Edward Jenkins, and Patrick Olivier. 2016. App movement: A platform for community commissioning of mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 26–37

    2016

  16. [24]

    Michael F Goodchild. 2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69 (2007), 211–221

    2007

  17. [25]

    Nitesh Goyal, Gilly Leshed, and Susan R Fussell. 2013. Effects of Visualization and Note-taking on Sensemaking and Analysis. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2721–2724

    2013

  18. [26]

    Nitesh Goyal, Gilly Leshed, and Susan R Fussell. 2013. Leveraging partner’s insights for distributed collaborative sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion . 15–18

    2013

  19. [27]

    Mark Graham and Martin Dittus. 2022. Geographies of digital exclusion: Data and inequality. (No Title) (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Jean Hardy. 2019. How the design of social technology fails rural America. InCompanion Publication of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2019 Companion . 189–193

    2019

  21. [29]

    Steve Harrison and Paul Dourish. 1996. Re-place-ing space: the roles of place and space in collaborative systems. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work . 67–76

    1996

  22. [30]

    Brent Hecht and Darren Gergle. 2010. The tower of Babel meets web 2.0: user-generated content and its applications in a multilingual context. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 291–300

    2010

  23. [31]

    Brent Hecht, Lichan Hong, Bongwon Suh, and Ed H Chi. 2011. Tweets from Justin Bieber’s heart: the dynamics of the location field in user profiles. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 237–246

    2011

  24. [32]

    localness

    Brent J Hecht and Darren Gergle. 2010. On the" localness" of user-generated content. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work . 229–232

    2010

  25. [33]

    Martin Heidegger et al. 1971. Building dwelling thinking. Poetry, language, thought 154 (1971), 1–26

    1971

  26. [34]

    Martin Heidegger, Albert Hofstadter, et al. 1975. Poetry, language, thought. Harper & Row New York

    1975

  27. [35]

    Michael A Hogg. 2016. Social identity theory . Springer

    2016

  28. [36]

    Yen-Chia Hsu, Jennifer Cross, Paul Dille, Michael Tasota, Beatrice Dias, Randy Sargent, Ting-Hao Huang, and Illah Nourbakhsh

  29. [37]

    Localness

    Yuheng Hu, Shelly D Farnham, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2013. Whoo. ly: Facilitating information seeking for hyperlocal communities using social media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 3481–3490. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publi...

    2013

  30. [38]

    Andrew Jenkins, Arie Croitoru, Andrew T Crooks, and Anthony Stefanidis. 2016. Crowdsourcing a collective sense of place. PloS one 11, 4 (2016), e0152932

    2016

  31. [39]

    Peiling Jiang, Jude Rayan, Steven P Dow, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Graphologue: Exploring large language model responses with interactive diagrams. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–20

    2023

  32. [40]

    Isaac L Johnson, Yilun Lin, Toby Jia-Jun Li, Andrew Hall, Aaron Halfaker, Johannes Schöning, and Brent Hecht. 2016. Not at home on the range: Peer production and the urban/rural divide. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 13–25

    2016

  33. [41]

    Isaac L Johnson, Subhasree Sengupta, Johannes Schöning, and Brent Hecht. 2016. The geography and importance of localness in geotagged social media. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 515–526

    2016

  34. [42]

    Bradley S Jorgensen and Richard C Stedman. 2001. Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of environmental psychology 21, 3 (2001), 233–248

    2001

  35. [43]

    David Jurgens, Tyler Finethy, James McCorriston, Yi Xu, and Derek Ruths. 2015. Geolocation prediction in twitter using social networks: A critical analysis and review of current practice. In Proceedings of the international AAAI conference on web and social media , Vol. 9. 188–197

    2015

  36. [44]

    Hyeonsu B Kang, Tongshuang Wu, Joseph Chee Chang, and Aniket Kittur. 2023. Synergi: A Mixed-Initiative System for Scholarly Synthesis and Sensemaking. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–19

    2023

  37. [45]

    Ankit Kariryaa, Isaac Johnson, Johannes Schöning, and Brent Hecht. 2018. Defining and predicting the localness of volunteered geographic information using ground truth data. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–12

    2018

  38. [46]

    Srijan Kumar and Neil Shah. 2018. False information on web and social media: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.08559 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Laura Lentini and Françoise Decortis. 2010. Space and places: when interacting with and in physical space becomes a meaningful experience. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 14 (2010), 407–415

    2010

  40. [48]

    Linna Li, Michael F Goodchild, and Bo Xu. 2013. Spatial, temporal, and socioeconomic patterns in the use of Twitter and Flickr. Cartography and geographic information science 40, 2 (2013), 61–77

    2013

  41. [49]

    Fangyu Liu, Emanuele Bugliarello, Edoardo Maria Ponti, Siva Reddy, Nigel Collier, and Desmond Elliott. 2021. Visually grounded reasoning across languages and cultures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13238 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Jieyi Long. 2023. Large language model guided tree-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08291 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Setha M Low and Irwin Altman. 1992. Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In Place attachment. Springer, 1–12

    1992

  44. [52]

    Pamela J Ludford, Reid Priedhorsky, Ken Reily, and Loren Terveen. 2007. Capturing, sharing, and using local place information. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 1235–1244

    2007

  45. [53]

    Xiao Ma, Swaroop Mishra, Ariel Liu, Sophie Ying Su, Jilin Chen, Chinmay Kulkarni, Heng-Tze Cheng, Quoc Le, and Ed Chi. 2024. Beyond chatbots: Explorellm for structured thoughts and personalized model responses. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2024

  46. [54]

    Lone Malmborg, Ann Light, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Victoria Bellotti, and Margot Brereton. 2015. Designing for sharing in local communities. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 2357–2360

    2015

  47. [55]

    Lynne C Manzo. 2005. For better or worse: Exploring multiple dimensions of place meaning. Journal of environmental psychology 25, 1 (2005), 67–86

    2005

  48. [56]

    Lynne C Manzo and Douglas D Perkins. 2006. Finding common ground: The importance of place attachment to community participation and planning. Journal of planning literature 20, 4 (2006), 335–350

    2006

  49. [57]

    David W McMillan and David M Chavis. 1986. Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology 14, 1 (1986), 6–23

    1986

  50. [58]

    Vikram Mohanty, David Thames, Sneha Mehta, and Kurt Luther. 2019. Photo sleuth: Combining human expertise and face recognition to identify historical portraits. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces . 547–557

    2019

  51. [59]

    OpenStreetMap Contributors. n.d.. Apple - OpenStreetMap Wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Apple. Accessed: 2024-09-12

    2024

  52. [60]

    OpenStreetMap Contributors. n.d.. Lyft - OpenStreetMap Wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lyft. Accessed: 2024-09-12

    2024

  53. [61]

    Ville Paananen, Jonas Oppenlaender, Jorge Goncalves, Danula Hettiachchi, and Simo Hosio. 2021. Investigating human scale spatial experience. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, ISS (2021), 1–18

    2021

  54. [62]

    Rocco Panciera, Jeffrey P Walker, Thomas J Jackson, Douglas A Gray, Mihai A Tanase, Dongryeol Ryu, Alessandra Monerris, Heath Yardley, Christoph Rüdiger, Xiaoling Wu, et al. 2013. The soil moisture active passive experiments (SMAPEx): Toward soil moisture retrieval from the SM...

    2013

  55. [63]

    Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2019. Language models as knowledge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. In Proceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis , Vol. 5. McLean, VA, USA, 2–4

    2005

  57. [65]

    Adrian Popescu and Gregory Grefenstette. 2010. Mining user home location and gender from flickr tags. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 4. 307–310

    2010

  58. [66]

    Harold M Proshansky, Abbe K Fabian, and Robert Kaminoff. 1983. Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology 3, 1 (1983), 57–83

    1983

  59. [67]

    Giovanni Puccetti, Anna Rogers, Chiara Alzetta, Felice Dell’Orletta, and Andrea Esuli. 2024. AI" News" Content Farms Are Easy to Make and Hard to Detect: A Case Study in Italian. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12128 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Daniele Quercia, Rossano Schifanella, and Luca Maria Aiello. 2014. The shortest path to happiness: Recommending beautiful, quiet, and happy routes in the city. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on Hypertext and social media . 116–125

    2014

  61. [69]

    Daniele Quercia, Rossano Schifanella, Luca Maria Aiello, and Kate McLean. 2015. Smelly maps: the digital life of urban smellscapes. In Proceedings of the International AAAI conference on Web and Social Media , Vol. 9. 327–336. , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: Septe...

    2015

  62. [70]

    Christopher M Raymond, Gregory Brown, and Delene Weber. 2010. The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections. Journal of environmental psychology 30, 4 (2010), 422–434

    2010

  63. [71]

    Stephen Reicher, Russell Spears, and S Alexander Haslam. 2010. The social identity approach in social psychology. Sage identities handbook (2010), 45–62

    2010

  64. [72]

    Edward Relph. 1976. Place and placelessness. Vol. 67. Pion London

    1976

  65. [73]

    Daniel M Russell, Mark J Stefik, Peter Pirolli, and Stuart K Card. 1993. The cost structure of sensemaking. In Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 conference on Human factors in computing systems . 269–276

    1993

  66. [74]

    Leonard Salewski, Stephan Alaniz, Isabel Rio-Torto, Eric Schulz, and Zeynep Akata. 2023. In-context impersonation reveals Large Language Models’ strengths and biases. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2023), 72044–72057

    2023

  67. [75]

    Pablo Sanchez and Linus W Dietz. 2022. Travelers vs. Locals: The Effect of Cluster Analysis in Point-of-Interest Recommendation. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization . 132–142

    2022

  68. [76]

    Maarten Sap, Ronan Le Bras, Emily Allaway, Chandra Bhagavatula, Nicholas Lourie, Hannah Rashkin, Brendan Roof, Noah A Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Atomic: An atlas of machine commonsense for if-then reasoning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, V...

    2019

  69. [77]

    Arafat" and

    Shilad Sen, Margaret E. Giesel, Rebecca Gold, Benjamin Hillmann, Matt Lesicko, Samuel Naden, Jesse Russell, Zixiao (Ken) Wang, and Brent Hecht. 2015. Turkers, Scholars, "Arafat" and "Peace": Cultural Communities and Algorithmic Gold Standards. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Con...

    2015

  70. [78]

    Vered Shwartz. 2022. Good night at 4 pm?! time expressions in different cultures. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022. 2842–2853

    2022

  71. [79]

    Thiago H Silva, Aline Carneiro Viana, Fabrício Benevenuto, Leandro Villas, Juliana Salles, Antonio Loureiro, and Daniele Quercia. 2019. Urban computing leveraging location-based social network data: a survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 52, 1 (2019), 1–39

    2019

  72. [80]

    Kate Starbird, Ahmer Arif, and Tom Wilson. 2019. Disinformation as collaborative work: Surfacing the participatory nature of strategic information operations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1–26

    2019

  73. [81]

    RC Stedman. 2008. What do we" mean" by place meanings? Implications of place meanings for managers and practitioners. Vols. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-744. In LE Kruger, TE Hall, & MC Stiefel (Eds.), Understanding concepts of place in recreation research and management. ...

    2008

  74. [82]

    Sangho Suh, Bryan Min, Srishti Palani, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Sensecape: Enabling multilevel exploration and sensemaking with large language models. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . 1–18

    2023

  75. [83]

    Emily Sun. 2015. The importance of play in digital placemaking. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 9. 23–25

    2015

  76. [84]

    Emily Sun, Ross McLachlan, and Mor Naaman. 2017. Movemeant: anonymously building community through shared location histories. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 4284–4289

    2017

  77. [85]

    Emily Sun and Mor Naaman. 2018. A multi-site investigation of community awareness through passive location sharing. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–13

    2018

  78. [86]

    Henri Tajfel, John C Turner, William G Austin, and Stephen Worchel. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict.Organizational identity: A reader 56, 65 (1979), 9780203505984–16

    1979

  79. [87]

    Alex S Taylor, Siân Lindley, Tim Regan, David Sweeney, Vasillis Vlachokyriakos, Lillie Grainger, and Jessica Lingel. 2015. Data-in-place: Thinking through the relations between data and community. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2015

  80. [88]

    Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Aaron Halfaker, Loren G Terveen, and Brent Hecht. 2018. Distance and attraction: Gravity models for geographic content production. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems . 1–13

    2018

  81. [89]

    Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Brent Hecht, and Loren Terveen. 2018. Geographic Biases are’Born, not Made’ Exploring Contributors’ Spatiotemporal Behavior in OpenStreetMap. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work . 71–82

    2018

  82. [90]

    Yi-Fu Tuan. 1977. Space and place: The perspective of experience . U of Minnesota Press

    1977

  83. [91]

    A. Turing. 1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 59, 236 (1950), 433–460

    1950

  84. [92]

    John C Turner and Katherine J Reynolds. 2012. Self-categorization theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology 2 (2012), 399–417

    2012

  85. [93]

    Sukrit Venkatagiri, Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Rachel Kohler, John Purviance, Rifat Sabbir Mansur, and Kurt Luther. 2019. GroundTruth: Augmenting expert image geolocation with crowdsourcing and shared representations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (...

    2019

  86. [94]

    Vasilis Vlachokyriakos, Rob Comber, Karim Ladha, Nick Taylor, Paul Dunphy, Patrick McCorry, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. PosterVote: expanding the action repertoire for local political activism. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems . 795–804

    2014

  87. [95]

    Luis Von Ahn. 2006. Games with a purpose. Computer 39, 6 (2006), 92–94

    2006

  88. [96]

    Luis Von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2004. Labeling images with a computer game. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems . 319–326

    2004

  89. [97]

    Luis Von Ahn and Laura Dabbish. 2008. Designing games with a purpose. Commun. ACM 51, 8 (2008), 58–67

    2008

  90. [98]

    Ryen White and Georg Buscher. 2012. Characterizing local interests and local knowledge. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1607–1610

    2012

  91. [99]

    Shaomei Wu, Shenwei Liu, Dan Cosley, and Michael Macy. 2011. Mining collective local knowledge from google mymaps. InProceedings of the 20th international conference companion on World wide web . 151–152

    2011

  92. [100]

    Localness

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2024. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024). , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication...

    2024

  93. [101]

    Da Yin, Hritik Bansal, Masoud Monajatipoor, Liunian Harold Li, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2022. Geomlama: Geo-diverse commonsense probing on multilingual pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.12247 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Da Yin, Liunian Harold Li, Ziniu Hu, Nanyun Peng, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Broaden the vision: Geo-diverse visual commonsense reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.06860 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Xiaoyi Yuan and Andrew Crooks. 2019. Assessing the placeness of locations through user-contributed content. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on AI for Geographic Knowledge Discovery . 15–23

    2019

  96. [104]

    Pengyi Zhang and Dagobert Soergel. 2014. Towards a comprehensive model of the cognitive process and mechanisms of individual sensemaking. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 9 (2014), 1733–1756

    2014

  97. [105]

    Jian Zhao, Michael Glueck, Petra Isenberg, Fanny Chevalier, and Azam Khan. 2017. Supporting handoff in asynchronous collaborative sensemaking using knowledge-transfer graphs. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 1 (2017), 340–350

    2017

  98. [106]

    Localness

    Kangyan Zhou, Shrimai Prabhumoye, and Alan W Black. 2018. A dataset for document grounded conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.07358 (2018). A PROMPT “Act as a lifelong resident of [City, State] with deep local knowledge. Engage in natural, casual conversation as if chatti...

    2018 arXiv

  99. [2019]

    In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces

    Smell Pittsburgh: Community-empowered mobile smell reporting system. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 65–79

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.