Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 123 references

The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that 'hybrid work' is obsolete: AI has become a constitutive part of knowledge and creative work, inseparable from human effort, so design must shift from where work happens to who performs it and who is accountable.

desk verdict Useful synthesis with a clean vocabulary for AI-mediated work, but the core 'inseparable' claim is asserted and the paper's own evidence undercuts it. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13330 v1 pith:GAUDHZPE submitted 2025-04-17 cs.HC

Marios Constantinides , Himanshu Verma , Shadan Sadeghian , Abdallah El Ali This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords futureofworkblendedhybridhuman-AIcollaborationAI-mediatedknowledgecreativeAItransparency
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 provocation paper argues that the standard framing of modern work as 'hybrid'—a mix of office and remote, physical and virtual—is obsolete. In its place, the authors propose 'blended work': a condition in which AI is not a tool that workers use but a constitutive part of the work itself, inseparable from human effort in knowledge and creative tasks. The claim matters because it relocates the design problem from where work happens to who or what performs it, and who is accountable for it. The paper sets out four areas that must be redesigned under this lens: social relatedness, work-life boundaries, the physical-digital continuum, and AI transparency and accountability.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing conceptual mechanism is the instrumental-versus-constitutive distinction. The paper defines a blended work experience as the amalgamation of workers' tasks, outcomes, and responsibilities with the possibilities realized by AI-enabled tools, processes, and environments, such that AI's presence and influence become indistinguishable from human effort. This distinction is what separates blended work from hybrid or traditional work: hybrid arrangements describe where work happens and leave human autonomy and ownership intact, while blended work describes how work happens and who performs it, with authorship, accountability, and expertise redistributed between humans and AI. The paper also supplies comparative tables of traditional, hybrid, and blended routines for knowledge and creative workers to make the distinction concrete.

What would settle it

A longitudinal audit of a representative sample of knowledge and creative work products that can reliably separate AI-generated from human-generated components—e.g., through watermarking, interaction logs, or blinded expert judgment—and that shows workers retain full authorship and accountability for the final output would falsify the claim that human effort and AI output are indistinguishable and irreversible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that human effort and AI output in knowledge and creative work have become, and will remain, inseparable, so that the spatial vocabulary of 'hybrid work' no longer describes the actual condition of work. The authors distinguish an instrumental role for AI—a means to an end that leaves human autonomy, ownership, and accountability intact—from a constitutive role, in which AI reshapes the tasks, authorship, and accountability themselves. In blended work, AI's presence and influence are 'rendered indistinguishable' from human activity: an AI schedules, drafts, summarizes, and co-decides, and the human curates and refines outputs that could not have existed without both. The paper contends that this is not a temporary disruption but an irreversible shift, and that the research community should treat blended work as the baseline reality and design for agency, accountability, transparency, relatedness, and well-being inside it.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if AI in knowledge and creative work remains a tool under human control whose contributions are separable from human effort; in that case 'blended' would be a new word for the same hybrid reality, not a new phenomenon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If blended work is the baseline, 'where do people work' stops being the primary question; design should target how tasks, credit, and oversight are shared between humans and AI.
  • AI scheduling, drafting, and evaluation tools should be judged not by efficiency alone but by whether they preserve or erode work-life boundaries, job meaningfulness, and worker autonomy.
  • Workspace design should move beyond replicating the office in virtual space and instead create adaptive environments that support serendipity, deep focus, and equitable participation across physical and digital settings.
  • AI disclosure cannot remain a label or a policy checkbox: the paper calls for disclosure mechanisms, human oversight, and situated reflection as core design requirements whenever AI contributes to a work product.
  • Redefining authorship as a shared but accountable process becomes necessary when AI contributions may outweigh human effort in a given output.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not operationalize its own distinction, but a direct test follows: if removing the AI changes the product or the accountability structure, the work is blended; if not, it is hybrid.
  • The blended framing implies that productivity metrics based on individual human output will become increasingly unreliable, since effort and authorship are distributed across human-AI entanglements; the paper gestures at this through the 'achievement gap' but does not develop measurement implications.
  • A testable extension would be to measure whether workers who disclose AI assistance are systematically perceived as less competent, and whether disclosure protocols that normalize AI co-authorship reduce that penalty; the paper raises perception concerns but leaves the empirical question open.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This provocation paper argues that the dominant framing of 'hybrid work'—understood as a spatial/temporal mixture of remote and on-site work—is obsolete and should be replaced by 'blended work experiences,' in which human effort and AI output are entangled to the point of indistinguishability. Section 2 defines blended work via an instrumental-vs-constitutive distinction and positions it as the experiential layer over hybrid arrangements. Section 3 develops four design considerations: social relatedness in AI-mediated environments, job meaningfulness and wellbeing, rethinking workspaces across the digital-physical continuum, and AI transparency and accountability. Section 4 proposes participatory AI and value-sensitive design as methods for shaping blended work. The paper includes comparison tables for traditional, hybrid, and blended modes and closes with a positionality, limitations, and AI-usage disclosure statement.

Significance. The paper targets a real gap: the 'hybrid work' literature largely treats AI as a tool and focuses on location, whereas the proposed reframing would make authorship, accountability, and transparency primary design objects. The four considerations are well chosen, the synthesis of HCI/CSCW and AI-and-work literature is broad, and the call for participatory, value-sensitive design is constructive. Strengths include the concrete comparison tables, the explicit articulation of an 'instrumental vs. constitutive' distinction, and the transparent AI-use disclosure, which models the paper's own argument. If the central claim were adequately qualified, the paper could usefully shift discourse in the CHIWORK community. As it stands, however, the provocation overclaims: its key empirical premise is asserted rather than established and is internally inconsistent with its own definitions and evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section 2] The abstract's central claim that 'hybrid work is obsolete' is inconsistent with the paper's own definition. Section 2 states that 'Hybrid arrangements describe the structural flexibility of work' and that 'Blended experiences, on the other hand, are about how these hybrid arrangements manifest in practice,' and later that 'Hybrid arrangements describe where work happens, but blended work interrogates how work happens and who performs it.' On these definitions, hybrid arrangements are the structural layer that remains in place while blended experiences overlay them, so hybrid work is not obsolete but re-described. The provocation should reframe the claim as 'the hybrid framing is insufficient' or 'the discourse should move beyond the spatial lens,' or it should explicitly explain why the persistence of hybrid arrangements is compatible with declaring them obsolete. This is load-bearing because the paper's novelty rests on the 'not hybrid' claim.
  2. [Section 2 and Positionality, Limitations, and AI Usage Disclosure] The constitutive-vs-instrumental distinction, which carries the weight of the blended-work concept, is asserted rather than established. Section 2 claims that AI's 'presence and influence are rendered indistinguishable' and the abstract claims that 'human effort and AI output become inseparable,' but no observable criterion is given for when this threshold is met. The paper's own evidence undercuts the claim: the AI-use disclosure states that 'the intellectual framing, the initial content created, the critical perspectives, and final interpretations remain our own,' which presupposes that human and AI contributions can be separated; and the cited co-writing study [63] quotes users saying 'It was 80% me, 20% AI,' which presupposes that contributors can quantify their share. The proposed mission to 'de-blend' experiences (Section 2) likewise presupposes that entanglement is reversible. Without an operational test for 'indistinguishable' (e.g., inability of workers or external evaluators to attribute contributions, or loss of human veto power), the blended-vs-hybrid distinction collapses into 'AI-assisted hybrid work,' and the obsolescence claim does not follow. Please provide such a criterion or qualify the claim to a direction of travel, such as 'increasingly difficult to attribute.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The statistic 'In the UK, one in two employees believes they are being monitored at work, while over two-thirds fear AI-driven surveillance could be used discriminatorily [22]' is cited to reference [22], which is Cirqueira et al.'s paper on explainable AI in fraud detection; that reference cannot support the statistic. Please provide the original source or remove the claim.
  2. [Section 1 and Table 1] There are several typographical errors, including 'Blended Experinces' and 'creartive' in Section 1, 'at word' for 'at work' in Section 1, and 'Knowlege' in the Table 1 caption. Please proofread the manuscript.
  3. [References] References [24] and [25] are identical (both cite Colley et al. 2023, 'How Much Home Office is Ideal? A Multi-Perspective Algorithm'). The duplicate should be removed and citations renumbered.
  4. [Positionality, Limitations, and AI Usage Disclosure] The sentence 'Our team comprises three males and one female from Asia and one from Southern Europe' is grammatically ambiguous and appears incomplete; please clarify the team composition.
  5. [Tables 1 and 2] The 'Blended (AI-Assisted Work)' rows list routines such as 'Works remotely and integrates AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT for ideation...)' which read as hybrid-plus-AI rather than a distinct mode. Consider revising the rows so they exercise the constitutive definition (e.g., AI-initiated task delegation, AI-mediated accountability) rather than mere tool use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a conceptual provocation whose central claim rests on an asserted premise, not on a fitted parameter or a derivation that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a position paper with no model, fit, or quantitative prediction to be circular about. Its central move is to define 'blended work' as a state in which AI plays a constitutive rather than purely instrumental role (Section 2) and then argue that the hybrid-work framing is obsolete. That move rests on an empirically asserted premise about the current and irreversible role of AI in knowledge and creative work; it is not a quantity or result derived from that premise, so there is no self-definitional reduction in the sense of Eq. X = Eq. Y by construction. The paper does draw on the authors' own prior conceptual work ([112], [113], [114]), especially for the instrumental-vs-constitutive distinction and for the notion of blended experiences, and it cites its own earlier hybrid-events work when defining hybrid arrangements ([5], [113]). These are published conceptual and empirical sources rather than parameters fitted to the present argument, and the present paper adds independent content in its four design considerations and its participatory AI / value-sensitive design proposal. The appended AI-usage disclosure, which says 'the intellectual framing, the initial content created, the critical perspectives, and final interpretations remain our own,' is in tension with the paper's 'indistinguishable' rhetoric, and the absence of an operational test for the constitutive-vs-instrumental threshold is a genuine evidential weakness. But those are correctness and internal-consistency concerns, not circularity: nothing in the paper's argument chain is forced by a self-citation or by an input that is itself the target conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity score is low (1).

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters or invented physical entities. The paper rests on three domain assumptions: that AI is constitutively fused into knowledge work, that the instrumental/constitutive distinction carves the hybrid/blended boundary, and that knowledge and creative workers are the pivotal population. These are asserted, not derived.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption AI is constitutive of work: its presence and influence are rendered indistinguishable from human effort.
    Section 2 states AI is 'essentially diffused into work practices and outcomes... presence and influence are rendered indistinguishable'. This is the paper's core premise and is asserted, not empirically demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The instrumental vs. constitutive distinction maps onto hybrid vs. blended work.
    Section 2 uses this distinction to separate hybrid work from blended work; it is a definitional move rather than a tested typology.
  • domain assumption Knowledge and creative workers are the pivotal case for understanding AI-mediated work.
    Section 3 narrows the scope to knowledge and creative workers, stating they are 'disproportionately affected' by AI tools; this scoping limits the generality of the argument.
invented entities (1)
  • Blended work experiences
    purpose: Replace 'hybrid work' as the framing for AI-mediated work, emphasizing shared agency between humans and AI.
    The concept is defined by the authors but makes no falsifiable predictions; it is a conceptual lens, not an empirically checkable entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GAUDHZPE

@misc{pith2026250413330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GAUDHZPE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13330}
}
read the original abstract

The way we work is no longer hybrid -- it is blended with AI co-workers, automated decisions, and virtual presence reshaping human roles, agency, and expertise. We now work through AI, with our outputs shaped by invisible algorithms. AI's infiltration into knowledge, creative, and service work is not just about automation, but concerns redistribution of agency, creativity, and control. How do we deal with physical and distributed AI-mediated workspaces? What happens when algorithms co-author reports, and draft our creative work? In this provocation, we argue that hybrid work is obsolete. Blended work is the future, not just in physical and virtual spaces but in how human effort and AI output become inseparable. We argue this shift demands urgent attention to AI-mediated work practices, work-life boundaries, physical-digital interactions, and AI transparency and accountability. The question is not whether we accept it, but whether we actively shape it before it shapes us.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [63]

    It was 80% me, 20% AI

    Angel Hsing-Chi Hwang, Q. Vera Liao, Su Lin Blodgett, Al exandra Olteanu, and Adam Trischler. 2024. "It was 80% me, 20% AI": Seeking Aut hentic- ity in Co-Writing with Large Language Models. arXiv:2411.1 3032 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.13032

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    So what if ChatGPT wrote it?

    2023. Opinion Paper:“So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multi disciplinary per- spectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversa- tional AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management 71 (2023), 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt .2023.102642

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Ajay Agrawal, Joshua S Gans, and Avi Goldfarb. 2023. Do we want less automa- tion? Science 381, 6654 (2023), 155–158

    2023

  4. [3]

    Benn ett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fou rney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Benn ett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 201 9. Guide- lines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Confer- ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19)...

    arXiv 2019

  5. [4]

    Nantheera Anantrasirichai and David Bull. 2022. Artific ial Intelligence in the Creative Industries: A Review. Artificial Intelligence Review 55 (2022), 589–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7 CHIWORK ’25, June 23–25, 2025, Amsterdam, Netherlands Cons tantinides et al

    work page doi:10.1007/s10462-021-10039-7 2022

  6. [5]

    Alberta A Ansah, Adriana S Vivacqua, Sailin Zhong, Susan ne Boll, Marios Con- stantinides, Himanshu Verma, Abdallah El Ali, Alina Lushnikova, Hamed Alavi, Sean Rintel, et al. 2023. Reflecting on hybrid events: Learni ng from a year of hybrid experiences. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–4

    2023

  7. [6]

    Bon Adriel Aseniero, Marios Constantinides, Sagar Jogl ekar, Ke Zhou, and Daniele Quercia. 2020. MeetCues: Supporting online meetin gs experience. In 2020 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS) . IEEE, 236–240

    2020

  8. [7]

    Ezra Awumey, Sauvik Das, and Jodi Forlizzi. 2024. A Syste matic Review of Biometric Monitoring in the Workplace: Analyzing Socio-te chnical Harms in Development, Deployment and Use. In Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (FAccT ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 123 references
  1. [8]

    Kirstie Ball. 2022. Surveillance in the workplace: Past , present, and future. Surveillance and Society (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Till Ballendat, Nicolai Marquardt, and Saul Greenberg. 2010. Proxemic interac- tion: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In ACM In- ternational Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfa ces (Saarbrücken, Ger- many) (ITS ’10) . Association for Compu...

    2010

  3. [10]

    Umesh Bamel, Satish Kumar, Weng Marc Lim, Neeraj Bamel, and Nils Meyer

  4. [11]

    Nikola Banovic, Zhuoran Yang, Aditya Ramesh, and Alice Liu. 2023. Being trustworthy is not enough: How untrustworthy artificial int elligence (AI) can deceive the end-users and gain their trust. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 7, CSCW1 (2023), 1–17

    2023

  5. [12]

    Basalla1989Evolution. 1989. The Evolution of Technology. Cambridge University Press

    1989

  6. [13]

    Karthik S Bhat, Mohit Jain, and Neha Kumar. 2021. Infras tructuring telehealth in (in) formal patient-doctor contexts. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW2 (2021), 1–28

    2021

  7. [14]

    Abeba Birhane, William Isaac, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran , Mark Diaz, Madeleine Clare Elish, Iason Gabriel, and Shakir Mohamed. 2 022. Power to the People? Opportunities and Challenges for Participat ory AI. In Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (Arlingt...

  8. [15]

    Kun, Bastian Pfleging, and Orit S haer

    Susanne Boll, Andrew L. Kun, Bastian Pfleging, and Orit S haer. 2024. Human-AI Interaction for Work (Dagstuhl Seminar 23452). Dagstuhl Reports 13, 11 (2024), 20–71. https://doi.org/10.4230/DagRep.13.11.20

    2024 doi

  9. [16]

    Jenna Butler, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Rebecca Janssen, Ab igail Sellen, Nicole Immorlica, Adam Troy, Advait Sarkar, Alex Farach, Alex Chou ldechova, Alexandra Olteanu, Alexia Cambon, Arjun Radhakrishna, Ast a Roseway, Ben Zorn, Brent Hecht, Daniel G. Goldstein, Dhruv Joshi, Ed C u...

    2024

  10. [17]

    Eva Cetinic and James She. 2022. Understanding and Crea ting Art with AI: Review and Outlook. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 18, 2, Article 66 (Feb. 2022), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145 /3475799

    2022

  11. [18]

    Francesco Chiossi, Changkun Ou, Carolina Gerhardt, Fe lix Putze, and Sven Mayer. 2025. Designing and Evaluating an Adaptive Virtual R eality Sys- tem using EEG Frequencies to Balance Internal and External A ttention States. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 196 (...

    2025

  12. [19]

    Stepanova, Benjamin T ag, Monica Perusquia- Hernandez, Alexandra Kitson, Arindam Dey, Sven Mayer, and A bdallah El Ali

    Francesco Chiossi, Ekaterina R. Stepanova, Benjamin T ag, Monica Perusquia- Hernandez, Alexandra Kitson, Arindam Dey, Sven Mayer, and A bdallah El Ali

  13. [20]

    Janghee Cho, Samuel Beck, and Stephen Voida. 2022. Topo philia, placemak- ing, and boundary work: Exploring the psycho-social impact of the COVID-19 work-from-home experience. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer In- teraction 6, GROUP (2022), 1–33

    2022

  14. [21]

    Jun-Ho Choi, Marios Constantinides, Sagar Joglekar, a nd Daniele Quercia. 2021. KAIROS: Talking heads and moving bodies for successful meetings. In Proceed- ings of the 22nd International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems and Ap- plications. 30–36

    2021

  15. [22]

    Douglas Cirqueira, Markus Helfert, and Marija Bezbrad ica. 2021. Towards De- sign Principles for User-Centric Explainable AI in Fraud De tection. In Artificial Intelligence in HCI , Helmut Degen and Stavroula Ntoa (Eds.). Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 21–40

    2021

  16. [23]

    CHIWORK Collective, Naveena Karusala, Nabil Al Nahin C h, Diana Tosca, Al- berta A Ansah, Emeline Brulé, Nadia Fereydooni, Le-En Huang , Azra Ismail, Pranjal Jain, Yi Xuan Khoo, Isabel Muñoz, Clemens Schartmül ler, Himanshu Verma, Preeti Vyas, Susanne CJ Boll, Sarah E Fox, Noo...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Mark Colley, Pascal Jansen, Jennifer Matthiesen, Hann e Hoberg, Carmen Reger, and Isabel Thiermann. 2023. How Much Home Office is Ideal? A Mul ti- Perspective Algorithm. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Sym- posium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (Oldenburg...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Marios Constantinides and Daniele Quercia. 2022. Good intentions, bad inven- tions: How employees judge pervasive technologies in the wo rkplace. IEEE Pervasive Computing 22, 1 (2022), 69–76

    2022

  19. [27]

    Marios Constantinides, Mohammad Tahaei, Daniele Quer cia, Simone Stumpf, Michael Madaio, Sean Kennedy, Lauren Wilcox, Jessica Vitak , Henriette Cramer, Edyta Paulina Bogucka, et al. 2024. Implications of Regulations on the Use of AI and Generative AI for Human-Centered Respons...

    2024

  20. [29]

    Vedant Das Swain, Lan Gao, William A Wood, Srikruthi C Ma tli, Gregory D Abowd, and Munmun De Choudhury. 2023. Algorithmic power or punishment: Information worker perspectives on passive sensing enable d ai phenotyping of performance and wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 2023 C...

    2023

  21. [30]

    Vedant Das Swain and Koustuv Saha. 2024. Teacher, Trainer, Counsel, Spy: How Generative AI can Bridge or Widen the Gaps in Worker-Centric Digital Pheno- typing of Wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (Newca...

    2024 doi

  22. [31]

    David De Cremer, Nicola Morini Bianzino, and Ben Falk. 2 023. How Genera- tive AI Could Disrupt Creative Work. Harvard Business Review (April 2023). https://hbr.org/2023/04/how-generative-ai-could-dis rupt-creative-work Ac- cessed: 2023-08-22

    2023

  23. [32]

    Alok Debnath, Allison Lahnala, Hüseyin Uğur Genç, Ewan Soubutts, Michal Lahav, Tiffanie Horne, Wo Meijer, Yun Suen Pai, Yen-Chia Hsu, Giulia Bar- bareschi, Himanshu Verma, and Andrea Mauri. 2024. EmpathiCH: Scrutinizing Empathy-Centric Design Beyond the Individual. In Extended ...

    2024

  24. [33]

    Jared Diamond. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies . W. W. Norton & Company, New York, NY

    1999

  25. [34]

    Lakshita Dodeja, Pradyumna Tambwekar, Erin Hedlund-B otti, and Matthew Gombolay. 2024. Towards the design of user-centric strateg y recommendation systems for collaborative Human–AI tasks. International journal of human- computer studies 184 (2024), 103216

    2024

  26. [35]

    place" and

    Paul Dourish. 2006. Re-space-ing place: "place" and "s pace" ten years on. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Com- puter Supported Cooperative Work (Banff, Alberta, Canada) (CSCW ’06) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 299 –308. htt...

    2006

  27. [36]

    Luce Drouet, Wo Meijer, Aisling Ann O’Kane, Aneesha Sin gh, Thiemo Wambs- ganss, Andrea Mauri, and Himanshu Verma. 2023. The EmpathiC H Workshop: The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid CHIWORK ’25, June 23 –25, 2025, Amsterdam, Netherlands Unraveling Empathy-Centric Design....

    2023

  28. [37]

    Melanie Duckert. 2023. The Futures of Hybrid Work: A Soc io-Technical Framework for Designing Hybrid Environments. In Companion Publica- tion of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperati ve Work and Social Computing (Minneapolis, MN, USA) (CSCW ’23 Companion) . Assoc...

    2023

  29. [38]

    Upol Ehsan and Mark O. Riedl. 2020. Human-Centered Expl ainable AI: Towards a Reflective Sociotechnical Approach. In HCI International 2020 - Late Break- ing Papers: Multimodality and Intelligence , Constantine Stephanidis, Masaaki Kurosu, Helmut Degen, and Lauren Reinerman-Jon...

    2020

  30. [39]

    Abdallah El Ali, Rayna Ney, Zeph M. C. van Berlo, and Pabl o Cesar. 2023. Is that My Heartbeat? Measuring and Understanding Modality-Dependent Cardiac In- teroception in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 11 (2023), 4805–4815. https:/...

    2023

  31. [40]

    Abdallah El Ali, Karthikeya Puttur Venkatraj, Sophie M orosoli, Laurens Naudts, Natali Helberger, and Pablo Cesar. 2024. Transparent AI Dis closure Obliga- tions: Who, What, When, Where, Why, How. In Extended Abstracts of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2024

  32. [41]

    Large Whatever Models

    Passant Elagroudy, Jie Li, Kaisa Väänänen, Paul Lukowi cz, Hiroshi Ishii, Wendy E. Mackay, Elizabeth F Churchill, Anicia Peters, Antt i Oulasvirta, Rui Prada, Alexandra Diening, Giulia Barbareschi, Agnes Gr uenerbl, Midori Kawaguchi, Abdallah El Ali, Fiona Draxler, Robin Welsc...

    2024

  33. [42]

    Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, and Daniel Rock. 2023. Gpts are gpts: An early look at the labor market impact potential o f large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.10130 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Jessica Fjeld, Nele Achten, Hannah Hilligoss, Adam Nag y, and Madhulika Sriku- mar. 2020. Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping con sensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication 2020-1 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    Batya Friedman. 1996. Value-Sensitive Design. Interactions 3, 6 (dec 1996), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1145/242485.242493

    1996

  36. [45]

    Herbsleb

    Hana Frluckaj, Laura Dabbish, David Gray Widder, Huili an Sophie Qiu, and James D. Herbsleb. 2022. Gender and Participation in Open So urce Software Development. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, CSCW2, Article 299 (Nov. 2022), 31 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555190

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    Marylène Gagné, Sharon Parker, Mark Griffin, Patrick Dun lop, Caroline Knight, Florian Klonek, and Xavier Parent-Rocheleau. 2022. Unders tanding and shap- ing the future of work with self-determination theory. Nature Reviews Psychol- ogy 1 (05 2022), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.103...

    2022 doi

  38. [47]

    Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Grieman, John C

    Ozlem Ozmen Garibay, Brent Winslow, Salvatore Andolin a, Margherita An- tona, Anja Bodenschatz, Constantinos Coursaris, Gregory F alco, Stephen M. Fiore, Ivan Garibay, Keri Grieman, John C. Havens, Marina Ji rotka, Hernisa Kacorri, Waldemar Karwowski, Joe Kider, Joseph Konstan...

    2023

  39. [48]

    Ugur Genc, Senthil Chandrasegaran, Tilman Dingler, an d Himanshu Verma

  40. [50]

    Kuntal Ghosh and Shadan Sadeghian. 2024. The Impact of A I on Per- ceived Job Decency and Meaningfulness: A Case Study. In Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (CHIWORK ’24) . ACM, Newcastle- upon-Tyne, UK. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.14 273 arXiv preprint ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [51]

    Griggio, and Cl emens Nylandsted Klokmose

    Jens Emil Grønbæk, Banu Saatçi, Carla F. Griggio, and Cl emens Nylandsted Klokmose. 2021. MirrorBlender: Supporting Hybrid Meeting s with a Mal- leable Video-Conferencing System. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) ...

    2021

  42. [52]

    Jens Emil Sloth Grønbæk, Juan Sánchez Esquivel, Germán Leiva, Eduardo Vel- loso, Hans Gellersen, and Ken Pfeuffer. 2024. Blended Whiteb oard: Physicality and Reconfigurability in Remote Mixed Reality Collaboratio n. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in C...

    2024 doi

  43. [53]

    Hongyan Gu, Jingbin Huang, Lauren Hung, and Xiang ’Anth ony’ Chen. 2021. Lessons Learned from Designing an AI-Enabled Diagnosis Too l for Patholo- gists. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 10 (April 2021), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449084

    2021 doi

  44. [54]

    Kunal Gupta, Yuewei Zhang, Tamil Selvan Gunasekaran, N anditha Krishna, Yun Suen Pai, and Mark Billinghurst. 2024. CAEVR: Biosignals-Driven Context- Aware Empathy in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Com- puter Graphics (2024)

    2024

  45. [55]

    J Richard Hackman and Greg R Oldham. 1974. The Job Diagno stic Survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects. (1974)

    1974

  46. [56]

    Yuanning Han, Ziyi Qiu, Jiale Cheng, and Ray Lc. 2024. Wh en teams embrace AI: human collaboration strategies in generative prompting in a creative design task. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com puting Systems. 1–14

    2024

  47. [57]

    Nicolai Brodersen Hansen, Christian Dindler, Kim Hals kov, Ole Sejer Iversen, Claus Bossen, Ditte Amund Basballe, and Ben Schouten. 2020. How Partici- patory Design Works: Mechanisms and Effects. In Proceedings of the 31st Aus- tralian Conference on Human-Computer-Interaction (...

    2020

  48. [58]

    Natali Helberger and Nicholas Diakopoulos. 2023. The E uropean AI Act and How It Matters for Research into AI in Media and Journalism. Digital Jour- nalism 11, 9 (2023), 1751–1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/216708 11.2022.2082505 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2022.2082505

    2023

  49. [59]

    Patrick Hemmer, Max Schemmer, Michael Vössing, and Nik las Kühl. [n. d.]. Human-AI Complementarity in Hybrid Intelligence Systems: A Structured Lit- erature Review. ([n. d.])

  50. [60]

    Martin Christian Höcker, Yassien Bachtal, Kyra Voll, a nd Andreas Pfnür. 2024. Healthy, healthier, hybrid work: the burnout-reducing potential of remote work and the mediating effect of work autonomy. International Journal of Workplace Health Management 17, 4 (2024), 319–334

    2024

  51. [61]

    Steffen Holter and Mennatallah El-Assady. 2024. Decons tructing Human- AI Collaboration: Agency, Interaction, and Adaptation. Computer Graphics Forum 43, 3 (2024), e15107. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.15107 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/cgf.15107

    2024 doi

  52. [64]

    Nanna Inie, Jeanette Falk, and Steve Tanimoto. 2023. De signing Partic- ipatory AI: Creative Professionals’ Worries and Expectati ons about Gen- erative AI. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23) ....

    2023

  53. [65]

    Maurice Jakesch, Zana Buçinca, Saleema Amershi, and Al exandra Olteanu

  54. [66]

    Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Kha n, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Geb ru

    Harry H. Jiang, Lauren Brown, Jessica Cheng, Mehtab Kha n, Abhishek Gupta, Deja Workman, Alex Hanna, Johnathan Flowers, and Timnit Geb ru. 2023. AI Art and its Impact on Artists. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (<conf-loc>, <city>Montr...

    2023

  55. [67]

    Iqbal, Q

    Anna Kawakami, Shreya Chowdhary, Shamsi T. Iqbal, Q. Ve ra Liao, Alexandra Olteanu, Jina Suh, and Koustuv Saha. 2023. Sensing Wellbeing in the Workplace, Why and For Whom? Envisioning Impacts with Organizational S takeholders. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, CSCW2, Article...

    2023 doi

  56. [68]

    Kim, Taewan Kim, Sung-In Kim, So-youn Jang, Eun Bin (Stephanie) Lee, Heejung Yoo, Kyungsik Han, and Hwajung Hong

    Jennifer G. Kim, Taewan Kim, Sung-In Kim, So-youn Jang, Eun Bin (Stephanie) Lee, Heejung Yoo, Kyungsik Han, and Hwajung Hong. 2022. The W orkplace Playbook VR: Exploring the Design Space of Virtual Reality t o Foster Under- standing of and Support for Autistic People. Proc. AC...

    2022 doi

  57. [69]

    In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22)

    How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Res ponsi- ble AI. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (FAccT ’22) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 310 –323. https://doi...

    2022

  58. [70]

    Nikola Kovacevic, Tobias Boschung, Christian Holz, Ma rkus Gross, and Rafael Wampfler. 2024. Chatbots With Attitude: Enhancing Chatbot I nteractions Through Dynamic Personality Infusion. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Con- ference on Conversational User Interfaces (Luxembourg, L...

    2024

  59. [71]

    2024, forthcoming

    Andrew L Kun, Gabriela Marcu, and Marios Constantinide s. 2024, forthcoming. Life and Work at Home. IEEE Pervasive Computing 23, 3 (2024, forthcoming)

    2024

  60. [72]

    Johann Laux, Sandra Wachter, and Brent Mittelstadt. 20 24. Trust- worthy artificial intelligence and the European Union AI act : On the conflation of trustworthiness and acceptability of risk. Regulation & Governance 18, 1 (2024), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12512 arXiv:h...

    2024 doi

  61. [73]

    Nickerson, Michael Bernstein , Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton

    Aniket Kittur, Jeffrey V. Nickerson, Michael Bernstein , Elizabeth Gerber, Aaron Shaw, John Zimmerman, Matt Lease, and John Horton. 201 3. The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Com- puter Supported Cooperative Work (San Antonio, Texas, USA) (CSCW ’1...

    2013

  62. [74]

    Jie Li, Hancheng Cao, Laura Lin, Youyang Hou, Ruihao Zhu , and Abdal- lah El Ali. 2024. User Experience Design Professionals’ Per ceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (<conf-loc>, <city>Honolu...

    2024

  63. [75]

    Zihao Li. 2023. Why the European AI Act transparency obl igation is insufficient. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 6 (2023), 559–560

    2023

  64. [76]

    Juniper Lovato, Julia Witte Zimmerman, Isabelle Smith , Peter Dodds, and Jen- nifer L Karson. 2024. Foregrounding artist opinions: A surv ey study on trans- parency, ownership, and fairness in AI generative art. In Proceedings of the aaai/acm conference on ai, ethics, and soci...

    2024

  65. [77]

    Sueyoon Lee, Abdallah El Ali, Maarten Wijntjes, and Pab lo Cesar. 2022. Un- derstanding and Designing Avatar Biosignal Visualization s for Social Virtual Reality Entertainment. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, US...

    2022

  66. [78]

    Kirsten Martin. 2022. Excerpt from Ethical Implicatio ns and Accountability of Algorithms. In Ethics of Data and Analytics . Auerbach Publications, 453–462

    2022

  67. [79]

    Jochen Meyer, Elke Beck, Kai von Holdt, Frauke Koppelin , Alexander Pauls, and Susanne Boll. 2021. ActiThings: reminders for physical activity exercises in daily lives of inactive older adults. In 2021 IEEE 9th International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI) . IEEE, 386–395

    2021

  68. [80]

    Michael Muller and Justin Weisz. 2022. Extending a Huma n-AI Collaboration Framework with Dynamism and Sociality. InProceedings of the 1st Annual Meet- ing of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (Durham, NH, USA) (CHIWORK ’22) . Association for Computing Machi...

    2022 doi

  69. [81]

    Ali Ahmad Malik, Tariq Masood, and Alexander Brem. 2024 . Intelligent Hu- manoid Robots in Manufacturing. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE In- ternational Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (Boulder, CO, USA) (HRI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    2024

  70. [82]

    Sven Nyholm. 2023. Responsibility gaps, value alignme nt, and meaningful hu- man control over artificial intelligence. In Risk and responsibility in context . Routledge, 191–213

    2023

  71. [83]

    Sven Nyholm and Jilles Smids. 2020. Can a robot be a good c olleague? Science and engineering ethics 26, 4 (2020), 2169–2188

    2020

  72. [84]

    Renee Obringer, Benjamin Rachunok, Debora Maia-Silva , Maryam Arbabzadeh, Roshanak Nateghi, and Kaveh Madani. 2021. The Overlooked En vironmental Footprint of Increasing Internet Use. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 167 (2021), 105389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec...

    2021 doi

  73. [85]

    Weisz, Stephanie Houde, and S teven I

    Michael Muller, Justin D. Weisz, Stephanie Houde, and S teven I. Ross. 2024. Drinking Chai with Your (AI) Programming Partner: Value Ten sions in the Tokenization of Future Human-AI Collaborative Work. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer...

    2024

  74. [86]

    Alexandra Olteanu, Michael Ekstrand, Carlos Castillo , and Jina Suh. 2023. Re- sponsible AI Research Needs Impact Statements Too. arXiv:2 311.11776 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11776

    2023 arXiv

  75. [87]

    Pat Pataranutaporn, Ruby Liu, Ed Finn, and Pattie Maes. 2023. Influencing human–AI interaction by priming beliefs about AI can increase perceived trust- worthiness, empathy and effectiveness. Nature Machine Intelligence 5, 10 (2023), 1076–1086

    2023

  76. [88]

    Irene Rae. 2024. The Effects of Perceived AI Use On Conten t Perceptions. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com puting Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 978, 14 pages. https://doi....

    2024

  77. [89]

    Kenton O’hara, Jesper Kjeldskov, and Jeni Paay. 2011. B lended interaction spaces for distributed team collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI) 18, 1 (2011), 1–28

    2011

  78. [90]

    Bogdana Rakova, Jingying Yang, Henriette Cramer, and R umman Chowdhury

  79. [91]

    Michal Rinott and Orit Shaer. 2024. Temporal Aspects of Human-AI Collabo- rations for Work. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work (Newcastle upon Tyne, United King- dom) (CHIWORK ’24) . Association for Computing Machin...

    2024 doi

  80. [92]

    Tamsin J Robb, Yinan Liu, Braden Woodhouse, Charlotta W indahl, Daniel Hur- ley, Grant McArthur, Stephen B Fox, Lisa Brown, Parry Guilfo rd, Alice Min- hinnick, et al. 2024. Blending space and time to talk about ca ncer in extended reality. NPJ digital medicine 7, 1 (2024), 261

    2024

  81. [93]

    Janet Rafner, Dominik Dellermann, Arthur Hjorth, Dora Veraszto, Constance Kampf, Wendy MacKay, and Jacob Sherson. 2022. Deskilling, u pskilling, and reskilling: a case for hybrid intelligence. Morals & Machines 1, 2 (2022), 24–39

    2022

  82. [94]

    Su- perpowers

    Shadan Sadeghian and Marc Hassenzahl. 2021. From Limit ations to “Su- perpowers”: A Design Approach to Better Focus on the Possibi lities of Vir- tual Reality to Augment Human Capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Virtual Event,...

    2021

  83. [95]

    Shadan Sadeghian and Marc Hassenzahl. 2022. The ”Artifi cial” Colleague: Eval- uation of Work Satisfaction in Collaboration with Non-huma n Coworkers. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelli gent User Interfaces (Helsinki, Finland) (IUI ’22). Association ...

    2022

  84. [96]

    Shadan Sadeghian, Alarith Uhde, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2 024. The Soul of Work: Evaluation of Job Meaningfulness and Accountability in Hum an-AI Collabora- tion. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 8, CSCW1, Article 130 (April 2024), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637407

    2024 doi

  85. [97]

    Nastaran Saffaryazdi, Tamil Selvan Gunasekaran, Kate L aveys, Elizabeth Broad- bent, and Mark Billinghurst. 2025. Empathetic Conversational Agents: Utilizing Neural and Physiological Signals for Enhanced Empathetic I nteractions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.08393 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  86. [98]

    Ryan and E.L

    R.M. Ryan and E.L. Deci. 2017. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psycholog- ical Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness . Guilford Publications. https://books.google.com.lb/books?id=GF0ODQAAQBAJ

    2017

  87. [99]

    Albrecht Schmidt, Passant Elagroudy, Fiona Draxler, F rauke Kreuter, and Robin Welsch. 2024. Simulating the Human in HCD with ChatGPT : Re- designing Interaction Design with AI. Interactions 31, 1 (jan 2024), 24?31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3637436

    2024 doi

  88. [100]

    Schmutz, Neal Outland, Sophie Kerstan, Eleni Ge organta, and Anna-Sophie Ulfert

    Jan B. Schmutz, Neal Outland, Sophie Kerstan, Eleni Ge organta, and Anna-Sophie Ulfert. 2024. AI-teaming: Redefining collabor ation in the digital era. Current Opinion in Psychology 58 (2024), 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101837

    2024

  89. [101]

    Ali Akbar Septiandri, Marios Constantinides, and Dan iele Quercia. 2024. The potential impact of AI innovations on US occupations. PNAS nexus 3, 9 (2024), pgae320

    2024

  90. [102]

    Graham Sewell and Laurent Taskin. 2015. Out of sight, o ut of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Or- ganization studies 36, 11 (2015), 1507–1529

    2015

  91. [103]

    Advait Sarkar. 2023. Exploring Perspectives on the Imp act of Artificial Intelli- gence on the Creativity of Knowledge Work: Beyond Mechanise d Plagiarism and Stochastic Parrots. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Sym- posium on Human-Computer Interaction for Work ...

    2023

  92. [104]

    It’s A lways a Losing Game

    Cella M Sum, Caroline Shi, and Sarah E Fox. 2024. " It’s A lways a Losing Game": How Workers Understand and Resist Surveillance Technologies on the Job. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.06945 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  93. [105]

    Mohammad Tahaei, Marios Constantinides, Daniele Que rcia, Sean Kennedy, Michael Muller, Simone Stumpf, Q Vera Liao, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Lora Aroyo, Jess Holbrook, et al. 2023. Human-Centered Responsible Art ificial Intelligence: Current & Future Trends. In Extended Abstracts o...

    2023

  94. [106]

    Mohammad Tahaei, Marios Constantinides, Daniele Que rcia, and Michael Muller. 2023. A Systematic Literature Review of Human-Centered, Ethical, and Responsible AI. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05284 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  95. [107]

    Liang Tang, Rui Miao, and Lin Jiang. 2020. Employee Pol itical Skill, Supervisor-Subordinate Guanxi, and Work-Family Conflict: The Cross- Level Moderating Role of Family-Friendly Practices. International Jour- nal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, 14 (2020), 5185....

    2020 doi

  96. [108]

    Jilles Smids, Sven Nyholm, and Hannah Berkers. 2020. R obots in the Workplace: a Threat to—or Opportunity for—Meaningful Work? Philosophy & Technology 33, 3 (2020), 503–522. The Future of Work is Blended, Not Hybrid CHIWORK ’25, June 23 –25, 2025, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    2020

  97. [109]

    Steven Umbrello and Ibo Poel. 2021. Mapping value sens itive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics 1 (08 2021), 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00038-3

    2021 doi

  98. [110]

    Michelle Vaccaro, Abdullah Almaatouq, and Thomas Mal one. 2024. When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic r eview and meta-analysis. Nature Human Behaviour 8 (10 2024), 2293–2303. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02024-1

    2024 doi

  99. [111]

    Wil MP Van Der Aalst. 2021. Hybrid Intelligence: to aut omate or not to au- tomate, that is the question. International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management 9, 2 (2021), 5–20

    2021

  100. [112]

    Himanshu Verma, Marios Constantinides, Sailin Zhong , and Abdallah El Ali. 2023. The Future of Hybrid Work is Blended and Interpe rsonal. https://interactions.acm.org/blog/view/the-future-o f-hybrid-work-is-blended-and-interpersonal. ACM Interactions

    2023

  101. [113]

    Dilan Taser, Ece Aydin, Ahmet Onur Torgaloz, and Yasin Rofcanin. 2022. An Examination of Remote E-Working and Flow Experience: The Ro le of Tech- nostress and Loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior 127 (2022), 107020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107020

    2022

  102. [114]

    Himanshu Verma, Jakub Mlynar, Roger Schaer, Julien Re ichenbach, Mario Jreige, John Prior, Florian Evéquoz, and Adrien Depeursing e. 2023. Rethink- ing the Role of AI with Physicians in Oncology: Revealing Per spectives from Clinical and Research Workflows. In Proceedings of th...

    2023

  103. [115]

    Dakuo Wang, Elizabeth Churchill, Pattie Maes, Xiangm in Fan, Ben Shnei- derman, Yuanchun Shi, and Qianying Wang. 2020. From Human-H uman Collaboration to Human-AI Collaboration: Designing AI Sys tems That Can Work Together with People. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Con...

    2020

  104. [116]

    Maranke Wieringa. 2020. What to Account for When Accou nting for Algo- rithms: A Systematic Literature Review on Algorithmic Acco untability. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountabilit y, and Transparency (Barcelona, Spain) (FAT* ’20). Association for C...

    2020

  105. [117]

    Shamma, and Pablo Cesar

    Julie Williamson, Jie Li, Vinoba Vinayagamoorthy, Da vid A. Shamma, and Pablo Cesar. 2021. Proxemics and Social Interactions in an I nstrumented Virtual Reality Workshop. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Hu- man Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’...

    2021

  106. [118]

    Himanshu Verma, Marios Constantinides, Sailin Zhong , Abdallah El Ali, and Hamed S Alavi. 2021. Sensiblend: Sensing blended experienc es in professional and social contexts. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2021 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Compu...

    2021

  107. [119]

    Tianna Xu, Advait Sarkar, and Sean Rintel. 2023. Is a Re turn To Of- fice a Return To Creativity? Requiring Fixed Time In Office To En able Brainstorms and Watercooler Talk May Not Foster Research Cr eativity. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Meeting of the Symposium on Huma n- C...

    2023

  108. [120]

    Yakovenko, Maryna Yu

    Yaroslava Yu. Yakovenko, Maryna Yu. Bilyk, and Yevhen iia V. Oliinyk

  109. [121]

    Zhiping Zhang, Chenxinran Shen, Bingsheng Yao, Dakuo Wang, and Tianshi Li. 2024. Secret Use of Large Language Model (LLM). arXiv:24 09.19450 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19450

    2024 arXiv

  110. [122]

    Nan Zhao, Elena C Kodama, and Joseph A Paradiso. 2022. M ediated atmosphere table (MAT): Adaptive multimodal media system for stress re storation. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 9, 23 (2022), 23614–23625

    2022

  111. [123]

    Emily Wong, Adélaïde Genay, Jens Emil Grønbæk, and Edu ardo Velloso. 2025. Spatial Heterogeneity in Distributed Mixed Reality Collab oration. In CHI’25: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . Association for Com- puting Machinery

    2025

  112. [126]

    In 2022 IEEE 4th Interna- tional Conference on Modern Electrical and Energy System (M EES)

    The Transformative Impact of the Development of Artifi cial In- telligence on Employment and Work Motivation in Business in the Conditions of the Information Economy. In 2022 IEEE 4th Interna- tional Conference on Modern Electrical and Energy System (M EES). 01–06. https://doi....

    2022

  113. [2021]

    Where Responsible AI Meets Reality: Practitioner Per spectives on En- ablers for Shifting Organizational Practices. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 7 (apr 2021), 23 pages. https://doi.org/1 0.1145/3449081

    2021

  114. [2022]

    Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 7, 4 (2022), 100275

    Managing the Dark Side of Digitalization in the Future of Work: A Fuzzy TISM Approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 7, 4 (2022), 100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2022.100275

    2022

  115. [2025]

    In CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’25)

    Persuasion in Pixels and Prose: The Effects of Emotiona l Lan- guage and Visuals in Agent Conversations on Decision-Makin g. In CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27 pages. ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.