Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 42 references

A blessing or a burden? Exploring worker perspectives of using a social robot in a church

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Workers at a large UK church were interviewed about a proposed social robot; they welcomed it for mundane chores and information but firmly excluded spiritual, pastoral, and welcoming roles.

desk verdict A transparent, well-scoped qualitative study of church workers' views on a social robot; the acknowledged participation bias is real but not fatal, and the paper deserves a proper peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22903 v1 pith:I2RVPCU7 submitted 2025-06-28 cs.HC cs.RO

Andrew Blair , Peggy Gregory , Mary Ellen Foster This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.RO
keywords socialrobotsworkerperspectiveschurchvalue-richspacesreflexivethematicanalysishuman-robotinteractionservicesectorvolunteerworkforce
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

Most robot-deployment studies assume functional settings where efficiency and profit dominate; this paper instead studies a large working church and visitor attraction, where the stated purpose is spiritual and communal. The paper reports hour-long interviews with 15 workers and volunteers and argues that their responses are mixed, clustering into four themes: the human element, modernisation versus tradition, improving experience, and robot agency. Participants saw real value in robotic help with repetitive physical tasks, the tiring welcome-desk routine, and information and translation duties, but were firm that pastoral care, sermons, and the first human greeting should stay human. The authors conclude that introducing robots into 'value-rich' organisations requires weighing social and intangible values as seriously as cost savings, and that deployment should be treated as a non-zero-sum process in which worker alienation can cancel any gains. A sympathetic reading takes the paper's contribution to be a worker-generated map of where the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable automation lies in a faith-based workplace.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a qualitative method: semi-structured interviews with 15 participants drawn from five stakeholder groups (volunteers, paid front-line staff, heritage management, clerical team, and back-office staff), analysed through a six-step reflexive thematic analysis, a qualitative coding approach in which themes are built inductively from transcripts. Interview questions used laddering probes, repeatedly asking 'why' to surface underlying motivations, and the first author coded transcripts inductively so themes would be grounded in the data. The four resulting themes are the device that organises the findings and links them to the research questions on staff responses, competing task perspectives, and the role of competing values.

What would settle it

A census-style survey of the entire church workforce, including those who declined to be interviewed, asking specifically whether a robot should greet visitors, answer heritage questions, or conduct spiritual activities; if the non-interviewed majority turns out to be overwhelmingly opposed, the paper's 'mixed responses' characterisation would be skewed toward the positive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, stated on the paper's own terms, is that worker perspectives toward a proposed social robot in a church are mixed and can be categorised into four themes. Participants valued a robot for alleviating menial or mundane tasks such as moving chairs and monitoring restricted areas, and for information provision, consistency of messaging, and translation. They resisted robot involvement in spiritual, pastoral, and welcoming roles, worried that a visible robot would diminish the awe of historic spaces and provoke negative press, and raised questions about robot agency, including who controls its knowledge base and whether it should stay on heritage topics. The paper treats this not as a list of preferences but as evidence that in a value-rich organisation, robot introduction is shaped by empathetic responsibility and intangible values as much as by efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on the assumption that the 15 people who volunteered to be interviewed represent the full range of worker and volunteer views, including the most skeptical ones.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If worker perspectives are respected, a deployed robot in this church should be assigned repetitive, physical, and information-providing tasks, not the welcome desk or pastoral care.
  • Visible robot presence in historically and spiritually significant spaces risks reducing visitors' sense of awe and inviting public mockery, so technology placement must be unobtrusive and carefully framed.
  • Automating the welcome desk could backfire by removing a role some volunteers enjoy, increasing volunteer turnover even as it reduces workload.
  • The robot's conversational scope should be deliberately constrained to heritage topics and away from subjective religious discussions, matching the standards workers expect of it.
  • Deployment should be treated as non-zero-sum (all parties can win or lose together): robot failure, worker alienation, or both can leave the organisation worse off than before, so success depends on preserving workers' sense of value.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same 'value-rich space' logic likely transfers to other mission-driven organisations, such as memorial sites, care homes, or community hubs, where a visible robot may clash with institutional identity even when it is functionally useful.
  • Beyond the paper: the pattern suggests a general rule that acceptance of automation tracks whether a task is boundary-marking for organisational identity (welcome, prayer, pastoral care) rather than merely low-status or tiring.
  • Beyond the paper: a testable extension would be to place a robot at the church welcome desk and measure volunteer retention and visitor reaction; the paper's logic predicts that removing the human greeter would be the flashpoint.
  • Beyond the paper: the acknowledged participation bias implies the true distribution of opinion may be more negative than 'mixed'; a complete census of church workers would tell whether the themes hold.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports a qualitative interview study with 15 workers and volunteers from five stakeholder groups at a large UK church and visitor attraction, exploring their views on the proposed introduction of a social robot. Semi-structured interviews were analysed with reflexive thematic analysis, producing four themes: the human element; modernisation while preserving tradition; improving experience; and robot agency. The findings indicate mixed responses: participants welcomed robotic help for mundane/repetitive tasks and information provision (especially translation), but strongly felt that spiritual, pastoral, and welcoming roles should remain human, and raised concerns about visible technology in a historic building, reputational risk, and the robot's decision-making agency. The paper frames these results as evidence that value-rich organisations must weigh social and intangible values alongside financial considerations.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely under-explored HRI context—a religious organisation with a mixed volunteer/paid workforce—and extends worker-perspective research beyond profit-driven settings. Its methodological reporting is a strength: ethical approval, stakeholder identification, semi-structured interview protocol, reflexive thematic analysis with a reflexivity statement, and explicit acknowledgement of participation bias and single-site transferability limits. The four themes are grounded in verbatim quotes, and the non-zero-sum framing in the Discussion is a useful conceptual contribution. If the findings hold, they offer practical guidance for future robot deployment in heritage and faith-based organisations.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V (Discussion)] The Discussion's statement that 'worker responses to the proposed social robot introduction were mixed' should be explicitly tied back to the 15 interviewees, since Section III-D acknowledges that voluntary participation likely excluded more negative viewpoints; adding a sentence such as 'These themes represent the workers who chose to participate and may not capture non-respondents' views' would prevent the reader from inferring a claim about the whole church workforce.
  2. [Section III-C] The manuscript does not report whether data saturation or information power was considered, and all coding was done by the first author; even if inter-coder reliability is not appropriate for reflexive thematic analysis, a brief statement on how the themes were reviewed with the co-authors or checked against the data would strengthen confidence in the completeness of the four themes.
  3. [Section II-A / Ref. [20]] The historical claim about the holy water vending machine is cited to a paper on therapeutic robot companions, which does not appear to support it; please replace this citation with an appropriate historical source.
  4. [Section IV-A] In the quote beginning 'CLS suggested congregants would be...', the participant code 'CLS' is used twice in a way that is ambiguous; clarify whether the second reference is the same participant or a different clerical staff member.
  5. [Section III-A] The sentence 'There is are also paid members of front-line staff present daily' contains a typo and should read 'There are also paid members...'.
  6. [Section IV-C2 and Section V] Phrases such as 'almost universally identified by participants' and 'Participants universally recognised' are stronger than the quoted evidence supports; please either add additional supporting quotes or soften these to 'many participants' to avoid overstating the degree of consensus.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are grounded in interview data and thematic analysis, with no load-bearing reduction to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that worker perspectives on the proposed introduction of a social robot fall into four inductively derived themes. This claim is supported by quoted interview excerpts and a reflexive thematic analysis of transcripts, not by prior results or by assumptions equivalent to the conclusions. The authors' self-citations appear only as background references (e.g., a university guidance robot [13] and a workshop position paper [32]) and are not used to justify the empirical findings. The acknowledged participation bias (Section III-D) is a validity limitation affecting generalizability, not a circular step: the paper does not define its findings in terms of the participants' willingness to volunteer, nor does it present a fitted parameter as a prediction. The coding was inductive and single-coder, but this is a methodological trustworthiness concern rather than circularity, because the themes are explicitly presented as interpretations of the data rather than as consequences of the method's assumptions. Therefore, no step in the derivation chain reduces to the paper's own inputs, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative study with no mathematical free parameters or invented entities. The main burdens are domain assumptions about participant representativeness, the value-rich nature of the setting, and the appropriateness of the analytic method. The authors explicitly flag the representativeness limitation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Participant self-reports in interviews reflect their genuine perspectives and attitudes toward robot introduction.
    All interview-based research relies on this premise; without it, thematic analysis of the transcripts has no interpretive value.
  • domain assumption The 15 self-selected participants represent the range of worker perspectives within the church.
    The paper acknowledges in Section III-D that participation bias likely excluded more negative viewpoints; this is load-bearing for the 'mixed responses' finding.
  • domain assumption The church is a value-rich organisation where non-monetary values (spiritual, community, heritage) are primary motivators.
    This framing from Sections I and II is used to interpret the findings and to address RQ3 about competing values.
  • domain assumption Reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke) is an appropriate method for these data.
    The choice of method is justified in Section III-C, but it assumes the method yields meaningful, valid themes that reflect the data.
  • domain assumption The first author's inductive coding is not unduly biased by their position.
    A reflexivity statement is provided (Section III-D), but no second coder or member checking was used, so interpretive bias is possible.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A blessing or a burden? Exploring worker perspectives of using a social robot in a church." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I2RVPCU7

@misc{pith2026250722903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A blessing or a burden? Exploring worker perspectives of using a social robot in a church},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I2RVPCU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22903}
}
read the original abstract

Recent technological advances have allowed robots to assist in the service sector, and consequently accelerate job and sector transformation. Less attention has been paid to the use of robots in real-world organisations where social benefits, as opposed to profits, are the primary motivator. To explore these opportunities, we have partnered with a working church and visitor attraction. We conducted interviews with 15 participants from a range of stakeholder groups within the church to understand worker perspectives of introducing a social robot to the church and analysed the results using reflexive thematic analysis. Findings indicate mixed responses to the use of a robot, with participants highlighting the empathetic responsibility the church has towards people and the potential for unintended consequences. However, information provision and alleviation of menial or mundane tasks were identified as potential use cases. This highlights the need to consider not only the financial aspects of robot introduction, but also how social and intangible values shape what roles a robot should take on within an organisation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    From the Unimate to the Delta Robot: The Early Decades of Industrial Robotics,

    A. Gasparetto and L. Scalera, “From the Unimate to the Delta Robot: The Early Decades of Industrial Robotics,” in Explorations in the History and Heritage of Machines and Mechanisms (B. Zhang and M. Ceccarelli, eds.), (Cham), pp. 284–295, Springer International Publishing, 2019

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    J. F. Engelberger, Robotics in Practice: Management and applications of industrial robots . Springer Science & Business Media, Dec. 2012

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    A survey of state-of-the-art on visual SLAM,

    I. Abaspur Kazerouni, L. Fitzgerald, G. Dooly, and D. Toal, “A survey of state-of-the-art on visual SLAM,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 205, p. 117734, Nov. 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Are customers happy with robot service? Investigating satisfaction with robot service restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic,

    O. El-Said and S. Al Hajri, “Are customers happy with robot service? Investigating satisfaction with robot service restaurants during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Heliyon, vol. 8, p. e08986, Feb. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Encountering Autonomous Robots on Public Streets,

    H. R. M. Pelikan, S. Reeves, and M. N. Cantarutti, “Encountering Autonomous Robots on Public Streets,” in Proceedings of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’24, (New York, NY , USA), pp. 561–571, Association for Computing Machinery, 2024. event-place: Boulder, CO, USA

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision,

    A. Radford et al., “Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervision,” Dec. 2022. arXiv:2212.04356 [eess]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Large Language Models: A Survey,

    S. Minaee et al., “Large Language Models: A Survey,” Feb. 2024. arXiv:2402.06196 [cs]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Post-Covid- 19 Adoption of Service Robots in Thai Tourism Enterprises:Assessing Impacts on Job Displacement and Job Creation,

    P. Rukumnuaykit, P. Pholphirul, and W. Phaphimolwat, “Post-Covid- 19 Adoption of Service Robots in Thai Tourism Enterprises:Assessing Impacts on Job Displacement and Job Creation,” Nov. 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    The difference between service robots and human staff in the ex- tended TPB model in airports,

    J. Hwang, K.-H. Joo, H. M. Kim, and J. S.-H. Lee, “The difference between service robots and human staff in the ex- tended TPB model in airports,” Current Issues in Tourism , vol. 27, pp. 1916–1929, June 2024. Publisher: Routledge eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2023.2215975

    1916

  2. [10]

    The MuMMER Project: Engaging Human-Robot Interaction in Real-World Public Spaces,

    M. E. Foster et al., “The MuMMER Project: Engaging Human-Robot Interaction in Real-World Public Spaces,” inSocial Robotics (A. Agah, J.-J. Cabibihan, A. M. Howard, M. A. Salichs, and H. He, eds.), vol. 9979, pp. 753–763, Cham: Springer International Publishing,

  3. [11]

    When interacting with a service robot is (not) satisfying: The role of customers’ need for social sharing of emotion,

    M. Lajante, D. Tojib, and T. I. Ho, “When interacting with a service robot is (not) satisfying: The role of customers’ need for social sharing of emotion,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 146, p. 107792, Sept. 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Service Robotics and Human Labor: A first technology assessment of substitution and cooperation,

    M. Decker, M. Fischer, and I. Ott, “Service Robotics and Human Labor: A first technology assessment of substitution and cooperation,” Robotics and Autonomous Systems , vol. 87, pp. 348–354, Jan. 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Development of a University Guidance and Information Robot,

    A. Blair and M. E. Foster, “Development of a University Guidance and Information Robot,” in Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE In- ternational Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’23, (New York, NY , USA), pp. 516–520, Association for Computing Machinery,

    2023

  6. [14]

    Lindsey the Tour Guide Robot - Usage Patterns in a Museum Long-Term Deployment,

    F. D. Duchetto, P. Baxter, and M. Hanheide, “Lindsey the Tour Guide Robot - Usage Patterns in a Museum Long-Term Deployment,” in2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 1–8, Oct. 2019. ISSN: 1944-9437

    2019

  7. [15]

    MINERV A: a second-generation museum tour- guide robot,

    S. Thrun et al., “MINERV A: a second-generation museum tour- guide robot,” in Proceedings 1999 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (Cat. No.99CH36288C) , vol. 3, pp. 1999– 2005 vol.3, May 1999. ISSN: 1050-4729

    1999

  8. [16]

    Personal Guides: Heterogeneous Robots Shar- ing Personal Tours in Multi-Floor Environments,

    I. Rodriguez et al., “Personal Guides: Heterogeneous Robots Shar- ing Personal Tours in Multi-Floor Environments,” Sensors, vol. 20, p. 2480, Jan. 2020. Number: 9 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2020

  9. [17]

    Deploying social robots in museum settings: A quasi-systematic review exploring purpose and acceptability,

    N. Gasteiger, M. Hellou, and H. S. Ahn, “Deploying social robots in museum settings: A quasi-systematic review exploring purpose and acceptability,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems , vol. 18, p. 17298814211066740, Nov. 2021. Publisher: SAGE Publi- cations

    2021

  10. [18]

    R. J. Sider, P. N. Olson, and H. R. Unruh, Churches That Make a Difference: Reaching Your Community with Good News and Good Works. Baker Books, Apr. 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    Bonhoeffer, I

    D. Bonhoeffer, I. Best, J. W. d. Gruchy, and L. E. Dahill, Letters and Papers from Prison: Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 8 . Fortress Press, June 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    Exploring the Design Space of Therapeutic Robot Companions for Children,

    C. O’Brien, M. O’Mara, J. Issartel, and C. McGinn, “Exploring the Design Space of Therapeutic Robot Companions for Children,” in Pro- ceedings of the 2021 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human- Robot Interaction , HRI ’21, (New York, NY , USA), pp. 243–251, Association fo...

    2021

  13. [21]

    Machines in the garden,

    J. Riskin, “Machines in the garden,” Republics of Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 16–43, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    Introducing ‘theomor- phic robots’,

    G. Trovato, F. Cuellar, and M. Nishimura, “Introducing ‘theomor- phic robots’,” in 2016 IEEE-RAS 16th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids) , pp. 1245–1250, Nov. 2016. ISSN: 2164-0580

    2016

  15. [23]

    Cybernetic Funeral Systems,

    M. Arnold, H. Gould, T. Kohn, B. Nansen, and F. Allison, “Cybernetic Funeral Systems,” in 2021 IEEE Conference on Norbert Wiener in the 21st Century (21CW) , pp. 1–4, July 2021. ISSN: 2643-4482

    2021

  16. [24]

    Communicating with SanTO – the first Catholic robot,

    G. Trovato et al., “Communicating with SanTO – the first Catholic robot,” in 2019 28th IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) , pp. 1–6, Oct. 2019. ISSN: 1944-9437

    2019

  17. [25]

    Blessing Robot BlessU2: A Discursive Design Study to Understand the Implications of So- cial Robots in Religious Contexts,

    D. L ¨offler, J. Hurtienne, and I. Nord, “Blessing Robot BlessU2: A Discursive Design Study to Understand the Implications of So- cial Robots in Religious Contexts,” International Journal of Social Robotics, vol. 13, pp. 569–586, July 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Hey? ! What did you think about that Robot? Groups Polarize Users’ Acceptance and Trust of Food Delivery Robots,

    J. E. Martinez, D. VanLeeuwen, B. B. Stringam, and M. R. Fraune, “Hey? ! What did you think about that Robot? Groups Polarize Users’ Acceptance and Trust of Food Delivery Robots,” inProceedings of the 2023 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI ’23, ...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Robot-Mediated Interaction Between Children and Older Adults: A Pilot Study for Greeting Tasks in Nursery Schools,

    J. Nakanishi, J. Baba, and H. Ishiguro, “Robot-Mediated Interaction Between Children and Older Adults: A Pilot Study for Greeting Tasks in Nursery Schools,” in Proceedings of the 2022 ACM/IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Human-Robot Interaction , HRI ’22, pp. 63–70, IEEE Pre...

    2022

  20. [28]

    Integrating a Social Robot in Higher Education – A Field Study,

    M. Donnermann, P. Schaper, and B. Lugrin, “Integrating a Social Robot in Higher Education – A Field Study,” in 2020 29th IEEE Inter- national Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), pp. 573–579, Aug. 2020. ISSN: 1944-9437

    2020

  21. [29]

    S. Riso, D. Adascalitei, and European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, eds., Human-robot interaction: what changes in the workplace? Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Work-oriented design of computer artifacts,

    P. Ehn, “Work-oriented design of computer artifacts,” 1988. Publisher: Arbetslivscentrum

    1988

  23. [31]

    First International Workshop on Worker-Robot Re- lationships: Exploring Transdisciplinarity for the Future of Work with Robots,

    C. Zaga, M. L. Lupetti, D. Forster, D. Murray-Rust, M. Prendergast, and D. Abbink, “First International Workshop on Worker-Robot Re- lationships: Exploring Transdisciplinarity for the Future of Work with Robots,” in Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International Con- ference on ...

    2024

  24. [32]

    Including Front-Line Workers as Primary Stakeholders in Public-Space HRI,

    M. E. Foster et al., “Including Front-Line Workers as Primary Stakeholders in Public-Space HRI,” in 1st International Workshop on Worker-Robot Relations, HRI ’24 , (Boulder, CO, USA), Mar. 2024

    2024

  25. [33]

    Knowledge hiding in worker-robot relationships,

    M. Alabak et al., “Knowledge hiding in worker-robot relationships,” in 1st International Workshop on Worker-Robot Relations, HRI ’24 , (Boulder, CO, USA), Mar. 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    The value of detachment: Preventing harmful worker- robot attachments,

    J. Mollen, “The value of detachment: Preventing harmful worker- robot attachments,” in 1st International Workshop on Worker-Robot Relations, HRI ’24 , (Boulder, CO, USA), Mar. 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and Interpretation,

    T. J. Reynolds and J. Gutman, “Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and Interpretation,” in Understanding Consumer Decision Making , Psychology Press, 2001. Num Pages: 40

    2001

  28. [36]

    Using thematic analysis in psychology,

    V . Braun and V . Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology , vol. 3, pp. 77–101, Jan. 2006. Publisher: Routledge eprint: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    Y . S. Lincoln and E. G. Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE, Apr. 1985

    1985

  30. [38]

    The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy,

    D. Adams, “The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy,” 1978. BBC Radio 4

    1978

  31. [39]

    Why do people volunteer? a review of the literature,

    R. Bekkers, E. van Ingen, A. de Wit, and M. B. van Groenou, “Why do people volunteer? a review of the literature,” in 45th ARNOVA Conference, Washington, DC, November , 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Nonzero-Sum Stochastic Games,

    A. Ja ´skiewicz and A. S. Nowak, “Nonzero-Sum Stochastic Games,” in Handbook of Dynamic Game Theory (T. Bas ¸ar and G. Zaccour, eds.), pp. 281–344, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018

    2018

  33. [2016]

    Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science

  34. [2023]

    event-place: Stockholm, Sweden

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.