Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Comparing Socio-technical Design Principles with Guidelines for Human-centered AI

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read AI-aware socio-technical heuristics show continuous co-evolution and that transparency must come from people and organizations, not only algorithms.

desk verdict Solid conceptual bridge: revises the author's prior eight socio-technical heuristics with HCAI themes and surfaces three usable comparative insights; method is transparent for its genre, soft spots are the usual literature-scope and no re-validation limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10331 v1 pith:VPJWGPAN submitted 2026-07-11 cs.AI cs.CY

Thomas Herrmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CY
keywords human-centeredAIsocio-technicaldesignheuristicstransparencyhumanautonomycontinuousevolutionappropriationethicalguidelines
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 compares human-centered AI guidelines with long-standing socio-technical design heuristics for ordinary IT and revises the latter so they explicitly cover AI. From a systematic scan of HCAI overview papers it extracts eight groups of requirements (transparency, fairness, autonomy, privacy, accountability, variance, benefits and well-being, safety) and maps them onto eight prior socio-technical heuristics, rewriting each heuristic with AI-specific clauses. The central claim is that continuous evolution is inherent to socio-technical systems that include AI: human oversight, interventions, and collaborative appropriation drive ongoing adaptation and re-design whenever autonomy is exercised jointly. Transparency and related HCAI demands cannot be met by technical explainability alone; they require contributions from the whole system, including human actors and organizational practices that compensate for AI’s shortcomings. A sympathetic reader cares because the work supplies a practical, ready-to-use evaluation language that treats AI not as a black-box add-on but as a co-evolving partner whose limitations are mitigated by social design.

What carries the argument

The eight revised socio-technical heuristics (visibility/feedback, flexibility/evolution, communication support, purpose-oriented information exchange, effort–benefit balance, competence–feature compatibility, efficiency-oriented task allocation, supportive technology), each rewritten with italicized AI-specific clauses that absorb the eight HCAI aspect groups extracted from the literature.

What would settle it

Apply the revised heuristics to a live AI deployment and check whether they surface problems that the original eight heuristics miss and that the original HCAI guideline lists also miss; if the revised set yields no additional, actionable insights, the mapping and revision fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Continuous evolution is a basic characteristic of socio-technical systems that include AI: human oversight or interventions and the subsequent appropriation of AI systems lead to continuous adaptation and re-design when autonomy is collaboratively exercised. From a socio-technical viewpoint, transparency (and related HCAI requirements) must be fulfilled not only by technical features but by contributions of the whole system, including human actors and organizational practices designed to compensate for AI shortcomings.

Load-bearing premise

The eight HCAI aspect groups drawn from eighteen filtered overview papers are complete and correctly mapped onto the prior heuristics, so that the AI revisions are valid without fresh empirical problem-assignment or user validation.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper compares HCAI ethical guidelines and design principles with established socio-technical design heuristics (originally developed for conventional IT). After a Google Scholar search (2014–2024) filtered to 18 overview papers, 44 aspects are grouped into eight HCAI categories (Table 2). These are mapped onto the author’s prior eight socio-technical heuristics (Table 3), which are then revised with AI-specific content (Section 5, italicized passages). The central interpretive claims are that continuous evolution via collaborative human oversight, intervention and appropriation is basic to socio-technical systems that include AI, and that requirements such as transparency must be met by the whole system (humans + organizational practices), not only by technical features that compensate for AI shortcomings.

Significance. If the synthesis holds, it usefully bridges two literatures that have remained largely separate: classical socio-technical systems design (Cherns, Mumford, Clegg) and contemporary HCAI guideline collections (EC HLEG, Jobin et al., Garibay et al., Weisz et al.). The explicit revision of eight heuristics with AI-specific content, the emphasis on continuous evolution and collaborative appropriation, and the argument that organizational practices can compensate for technical AI shortcomings are concrete contributions that can orient both evaluation practice and further empirical work. The transparent multi-step literature filter and the side-by-side mapping (Tables 2–3) make the interpretive steps inspectable, which is a strength for a conceptual conference paper.

major comments (2)
  1. Sections 3–5 and Tables 2–3: The mapping of 44 extracted aspects onto the prior eight heuristics, and the subsequent italicized revisions, rest on a single-author interpretive grouping without reported inter-coder reliability, alternative category schemes, or a new empirical problem-assignment check of the kind used in the earlier heuristics paper. While acceptable for a conceptual piece, this leaves the validity of the revised heuristics under-specified; a short discussion of coding procedure, residual unmapped aspects, or a plan for subsequent validation would strengthen the load-bearing claim that the revisions are warranted by the HCAI literature.
  2. Section 6 (and the brief suggestion of a ninth heuristic of ‘value implantation’): Fairness toward external stakeholders is correctly identified as under-emphasized in classical socio-technical work, yet the paper does not integrate this insight into the revised eight heuristics of Section 5. Either expand one of the existing heuristics (e.g., visibility or compatibility) to cover external fairness explicitly, or motivate and sketch the additional heuristic more fully so that the comparison’s practical output remains complete.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table numbering is inconsistent: the literature-filter table is labeled ‘Table 3’ in the text while the heuristics-mapping table is also ‘Table 3’; renumber for clarity.
  2. Typographical slips: ‘Tabel 2’, ‘havw’, ‘promots’, ‘comp ati-bility’, ‘hi-erarchies’, and the repeated ‘Preprint of a conference-paper…’ header should be cleaned.
  3. Section 2: A short explicit statement of how the eight HCAI categories relate to (or diverge from) the EC HLEG’s seven requirements would help readers who already know that source.
  4. References: a few entries (e.g., the arXiv preprints) lack final publication details where available; update for the camera-ready version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Minor self-extension of the author's prior socio-technical heuristics; the HCAI mapping and continuous-evolution claim draw independent content from external sources and are not forced by definition or fit.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 6 (Discussion and Conclusion), continuous-evolution paragraph]
    "Continuous evolution is a basic characteristic of socio-technical systems. Human oversight and interventions and the subsequent appropriation of AI-systems [40] lead to continuous adaptation and re-design of the systems when autonomy is collaboratively exercised."

    The appropriation link that concretizes the continuous-evolution claim for AI is supported by a self-citation ([40], same author). This is mild and non-forcing: the evolution idea already appears in the pre-AI flexibility heuristic of [12], the HCAI autonomy/variance content is external, and no uniqueness or exclusion of alternatives is claimed. It does not collapse the paper's synthesis into a tautology.

full rationale

This is a conceptual synthesis paper, not a derivation with equations, fitted parameters, uniqueness theorems, or empirical predictions. The eight base heuristics are taken from the author's prior published work (Herrmann et al. [12]), which itself distilled classic STS sources (Cherns, Mumford, Clegg) plus HCI/CSCW/privacy literature against an external problem database; that is normal research-program continuity, not circularity. The AI revisions (Section 5, italics) and the eight HCAI aspect groups (Table 2) are extracted from an independent Google-Scholar filter of 18 external overview papers (EC HLEG [6], Jobin et al. [16], Weisz et al. [7], Garibay et al. [3], etc.). The central interpretive claim—that continuous evolution via collaborative oversight/appropriation is basic, and that transparency etc. must be met by the whole socio-technical system—is presented as revealed by the comparison (Section 6) and is consistent with the pre-existing flexibility heuristic already containing “leading to o evolution.” Self-citations ([12], [13], [38], [40]) supply background and examples but do not reduce the mapping or the claim to a tautology or unverified self-premise; no step equates an output to an input by construction. Score 1 only for the residual self-extension pattern common to follow-up design-principle papers; nothing reaches the threshold of fitted-input-as-prediction, self-definitional loop, or load-bearing uniqueness import.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

Conceptual synthesis paper with no fitted numerical parameters. Load-bearing content rests on domain assumptions about socio-technical systems and on the completeness of a filtered HCAI literature sample. No new physical or mathematical entities; the revised heuristics are design artifacts, not postulated natural kinds.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Classic socio-technical principles (Cherns, Mumford, Clegg) and the eight heuristics of Herrmann et al. (2022) remain an appropriate base for evaluating systems that include AI.
    Invoked throughout Sections 2 and 5 as the starting point for revision; not re-derived.
  • ad hoc to paper A Google Scholar search limited to 'Human-centered Artificial Intelligence' plus ethical/design guideline terms (2014–2024), filtered to 18 overview papers, adequately represents the HCAI guideline landscape for comparison.
    Method Section 3 and Table 1; authors note possible narrowing but defend via secondary citations found in the 13 core papers.
  • domain assumption HCAI requirements (transparency, autonomy, fairness, etc.) can be meaningfully assigned as extensions of the existing eight socio-technical heuristics rather than requiring a wholly new taxonomy.
    Table 3 mapping and Section 5 revisions; choice of abstraction level stated in Section 4.
  • domain assumption Continuous evolution, collaborative appropriation, and temporary interventions are general characteristics of socio-technical systems that include AI when autonomy is jointly exercised.
    Abstract and Discussion Section 6; supported by citations to appropriation and intervention work but treated as revealed by the comparison.
invented entities (2)
  • Revised eight socio-technical heuristics with AI-specific content (Section 5)
    purpose: Provide evaluable design/evaluation guidance that incorporates HCAI aspects into classic STS heuristics.
    The revised wording is the paper’s main deliverable; independent evidence is limited to conceptual mapping, not new empirical validation.
  • Suggested additional heuristic of 'value implantation' for fairness toward external stakeholders
    purpose: Address under-emphasis of external fairness in conventional STS discourse.
    Mentioned in Discussion as potentially relevant; not fully developed or validated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing Socio-technical Design Principles with Guidelines for Human-centered AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VPJWGPAN

@misc{pith2026260710331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing Socio-technical Design Principles with Guidelines for Human-centered AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VPJWGPAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10331}
}
read the original abstract

Human-centered AI (HCAI) refers to guidelines or principles that aim on ethi-cally oriented design of systems. We compare HCAI- guidelines with princi-ples of socio-technical systems that emerged in the context of conventional in-formation technology. The comparison leads to a revision of socio-technical heuristics by including aspects of AI-usage. The comparison reveals that con-tinuous evolution is a basic characteristic of socio-technical systems, and that human oversight or interventions and the subsequent appropriation of AI-systems lead to continuous adaptation and re-design of the systems, if autono-my is collaboratively exercised. From a socio-technical point of view, the cru-cial requirement of transparency has not only to be fulfilled with technical fea-tures, but also by contributions of the whole system including human actors. It will be promising for using AI, if not only technical features, but organization-al and social practices are socio-technically designed in a way that compen-sates shortcomings of AI.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shneiderman, Human-Centered AI

    B. Shneiderman, Human-Centered AI. Oxford University Press, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    The future of human-AI collaboration: a taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence sys- tems,

    D. Dellermann, A. Calma, N. Lipusch, T. Weber, S. Weigel, and P. Ebel, “The future of human-AI collaboration: a taxonomy of design knowledge for hybrid intelligence sys- tems,” in Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2019

    2019

  3. [3]

    Six Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges,

    O. O. Garibay et al., “Six Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Grand Challenges,” In- ternational Journal of Human –Computer Interaction, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 391 –437, Feb. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320

    doi:10.1080/10447318.2022.2153320 2023

  4. [4]

    Y. K. Dwivedi et al., “Opinion Paper: ‘So what if ChatGPT wrote it?’ Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy,” International Journal of Information Mana gement, vol. 71, p. 102642, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

    doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 2023

  5. [5]

    Where is the human in human-centered AI? Insights from developer priorities and user experiences,

    W. J. Bingley et al., “Where is the human in human-centered AI? Insights from developer priorities and user experiences,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 141, p. 107617, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107617

    work page doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107617 2023

  6. [6]

    European Commission, C. and T. Directorate General for Communications Networks, and High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI

  7. [7]

    [Online]

    Accessed: May 23, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://data.eu- ropa.eu/doi/10.2759/346720

    doi:10.2759/346720 2021

  8. [8]

    Toward General Design Principles for Gen- erative AI Applications

    J. D. Weisz, M. Muller, J. He, and S. Houde, “Toward General Design Principles for Gen- erative AI Applications.” arXiv, Jan. 13, 2023. Accessed: Oct. 26, 2023. [Online]. Avail- able: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.05578

    arXiv 2023

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisted,

    A. Cherns, “Principles of Sociotechnical Design Revisted,” Human Relations, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 153–162, 1987

    1987

  2. [10]

    The Principles of Sociotechnical Design,

    A. Cherns, “The Principles of Sociotechnical Design,” Human Relations, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 783–792, 1976

    1976

  3. [11]

    Mumford, Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS Method

    E. Mumford, Designing Human Systems for New Technology: The ETHICS Method. Manchester Business School, 1983. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.de/books?id=JTjxIwAACAAJ

    1983

  4. [12]

    Sociotechnical principles for system design,

    C. W. Clegg, “Sociotechnical principles for system design,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 463–477, Oct. 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0

    2000 doi

  5. [13]

    A problem-based approach to the advancement of heuristics for socio-technical evaluation,

    T. Herrmann, I. Jahnke, and A. Nolte, “A problem-based approach to the advancement of heuristics for socio-technical evaluation,” Behaviour & Information Technology, vol. 41, no. 14, pp. 3087–3109, 2022, doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2021.1972157

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    Promoting Human Competences by Appropriate Modes of Interaction for Human-Centered-AI,

    T. Herrmann, “Promoting Human Competences by Appropriate Modes of Interaction for Human-Centered-AI,” in Artificial Intelligence in HCI, vol. 13336, H. Degen and S. Ntoa, 73 Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 13336. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022...

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems,

    R. Chatila and J. C. Havens, “The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems,” in Robotics and Well-Being, vol. 95, M. I. Aldinhas Ferreira, J. Silva Sequeira, G. Singh Virk, M. O. Tokhi, and E. E. Kadar, Eds., in Intelligent Systems, Con- trol and ...

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the im- portance of trust repair in human–machine interaction,

    E. J. De Visser, R. Pak, and T. H. Shaw, “From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the im- portance of trust repair in human–machine interaction,” Ergonomics, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1409–1427, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.1080/00140139.2018.1457725

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,

    A. Jobin, M. Ienca, and E. Vayena, “The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines,” Nat Mach Intell, vol. 1, no. 9, pp. 389–399, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    Principled Artificial Intel- ligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights -Based Approaches to Principles for AI,

    J. Fjeld, N. Achten, H. Hilligoss, A. Nagy, and M. Srikumar, “Principled Artificial Intel- ligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethical and Rights -Based Approaches to Principles for AI,” SSRN Journal, 2020, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3518482

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Human -Centered Artificial Intelligence: Designing for User Empowerment and Ethical Considerations,

    U. A. Usmani, A. Happonen, and J. Watada, “Human -Centered Artificial Intelligence: Designing for User Empowerment and Ethical Considerations,” in 2023 5th International Congress on Human -Computer Interaction, Optimization and Robotic Applications (HORA), Istanbul, Turkiye: I...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: Guidelines for Reliable, Safe, and Trustworthy Human-centered AI Systems,

    B. Shneiderman, “Bridging the Gap Between Ethics and Practice: Guidelines for Reliable, Safe, and Trustworthy Human-centered AI Systems,” ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1–31, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.1145/3419764

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Responsible AI: bridging from ethics to practice,

    B. Shneiderman, “Responsible AI: bridging from ethics to practice,” Commun. ACM, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 32–35, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1145/3445973

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Ethical Challenges for Human –Agent In- teraction in Virtual Collaboration at Work,

    L. Hofeditz, M. Mirbabaie, and M. Ortmann, “Ethical Challenges for Human –Agent In- teraction in Virtual Collaboration at Work,” International Journal of Human –Computer Interaction, pp. 1–17, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.1080/10447318.2023.2279400

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Artificial intelligence ethics by design. Evaluating public perception on the importance of ethical design principles of artificial intelligence,

    K. Kieslich, B. Keller, and C. Starke, “Artificial intelligence ethics by design. Evaluating public perception on the importance of ethical design principles of artificial intelligence,” Big Data & Society, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 205395172210929, Jan. 2022, do i: 10.1177/20539517221092956

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI prin- ciples, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation,

    N. Díaz-Rodríguez, J. Del Ser, M. Coeckelbergh, M. López De Prado, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Connecting the dots in trustworthy Artificial Intelligence: From AI prin- ciples, ethics, and key requirements to responsible AI systems and regulation,” Infor- mation Fusion...

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    From AI ethics principles to data science practice: a reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical experience,

    I. Georgieva, C. Lazo, T. Timan, and A. F. Van Veenstra, “From AI ethics principles to data science practice: a reflection and a gap analysis based on recent frameworks and practical experience,” AI Ethics, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 697 –711, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s43681-021-00127-3

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Ethics of AI in organizations,

    S. M. Noble and V. Dubljević, “Ethics of AI in organizations,” in Human-Centered Arti- ficial Intelligence, Elsevier, 2022, pp. 221 –239. doi: 10.1016/B978 -0-323-85648- 5.00019-0

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Trust and trustworthiness in AI ethics,

    K. Reinhardt, “Trust and trustworthiness in AI ethics,” AI Ethics, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 735 – 744, Aug. 2023, doi: 10.1007/s43681-022-00200-5. 74

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning,

    S. Amershi, M. Cakmak, W. B. Knox, and T. Kulesza, “Power to the people: The role of humans in interactive machine learning,” Ai Magazine, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 105–120, 2014

    2014

  21. [29]

    Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human -AI symbiosis in organizational decision making,

    M. H. Jarrahi, “Artificial intelligence and the future of work: Human -AI symbiosis in organizational decision making,” Business Horizons, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 577–586, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Mak- ing in Clinical Imaging

    R. Fogliato et al., “Who Goes First? Influences of Human-AI Workflow on Decision Mak- ing in Clinical Imaging.” arXiv, May 19, 2022. Accessed: Jun. 03, 2022. [Online]. Avail- able: http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.09696

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Intervention user interfaces: a new interaction paradigm for automated systems,

    A. Schmidt and T. Herrmann, “Intervention user interfaces: a new interaction paradigm for automated systems,” interactions, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 40–45, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Where responsible AI meets reality: Practitioner perspectives on enablers for shifting organizational practices,

    B. Rakova, J. Yang, H. Cramer, and R. Chowdhury, “Where responsible AI meets reality: Practitioner perspectives on enablers for shifting organizational practices,” Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. CSCW1, pp. 1–23, 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Human-centered tools for coping with imperfect algorithms during med- ical decision-making,

    C. J. Cai et al., “Human-centered tools for coping with imperfect algorithms during med- ical decision-making,” in Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2019, pp. 1–14

    2019

  26. [34]

    ‘Hello AI’: Uncovering the Onboarding Needs of Medical Practitioners for Human -AI Collaborative Decision-Mak- ing,

    C. J. Cai, S. Winter, D. Steiner, L. Wilcox, and M. Terry, “‘Hello AI’: Uncovering the Onboarding Needs of Medical Practitioners for Human -AI Collaborative Decision-Mak- ing,” Proc. ACM Hum. -Comput. Interact., vol. 3, no. CSCW, pp. 1 –24, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1145/3359206

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    Foundation Models: A New Paradigm for Artificial Intelligence,

    J. Schneider, C. Meske, and P. Kuss, “Foundation Models: A New Paradigm for Artificial Intelligence,” Bus Inf Syst Eng, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s12599-024-00851-0

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Keeping the Organization in the Loop as a General Concept for Human-Centered AI: The Example of Medical Imaging,

    T. Herrmann and S. Pfeiffer, “Keeping the Organization in the Loop as a General Concept for Human-Centered AI: The Example of Medical Imaging,” in Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 2023, pp. 5272–5281

    2023

  29. [37]

    M. S. Ackermann, S. P. Goggins, T. Herrmann, M. Prilla, and C. Stary, Designing Healthcare That Works – A Socio-technical Approach. United Kingdom, United States: Academic Press, 2018

    2018

  30. [38]

    Adaptive trust calibration for human -AI collaboration,

    K. Okamura and S. Yamada, “Adaptive trust calibration for human -AI collaboration,” PLoS ONE, vol. 15, no. 2, p. e0229132, Feb. 2020, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229132

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical ex- tension of human-centered artificial intelligence,

    T. Herrmann and S. Pfeiffer, “Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical ex- tension of human-centered artificial intelligence,” AI&Soc, vol. 38, pp. 1523–1542, 2023, doi: 10.1007/s00146-022-01391-5

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Intervention and EUD: A Combination for Appropriating Automated Processes,

    T. Herrmann, C. Lentzsch, and M. Degeling, “Intervention and EUD: A Combination for Appropriating Automated Processes,” in End -User Development, A. Malizia, S. Valto- lina, A. Morch, A. Serrano, and A. Stratton, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publish- ing, 2019, pp. 67–82...

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Collaborative Appropriation of AI in the Context of Interacting with AI,

    T. Herrmann, “Collaborative Appropriation of AI in the Context of Interacting with AI,” in Artificial Intelligence in HCI, vol. 14051, H. Degen and S. Ntoa, Eds., in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 14051. , Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 249–

    2023

  34. [42]

    doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-35894-4_18

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.