BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Damiano Spina

Damiano Spina contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Information RetrievalComputation and LanguageHuman-Computer InteractionSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Characterizing Personality from Eye-Tracking: The Role of Gaze and Its Absence in Interactive Search Environments

Personality traits influence how individuals engage, behave, and make decisions during the information-seeking process. However, few studies have linked personality to observable search behaviors. This study aims to characterize personality traits through a multimodal time-series model that integrates eye-tracking data and gaze missingness-periods when the user's gaze is not captured. This approach is based on the idea that people often look away when they think, signaling disengagement or reflection. We conducted a user study with 25 participants, who used an interactive application on an iPad, allowing them to engage with digital artifacts from a museum. We rely on raw gaze data from an eye tracker, minimizing preprocessing so that behavioral patterns can be preserved without substantial data cleaning. From this perspective, we trained models to predict personality traits using gaze signals. Our results from a five-fold cross-validation study demonstrate strong predictive performance across all five dimensions: Neuroticism (Macro F1 = 77.69%), Conscientiousness (74.52%), Openness (77.52%), Agreeableness (73.09%), and Extraversion (76.69%). The ablation study examines whether the absence of gaze information affects the model performance, demonstrating that incorporating missingness improves multimodal time-series modeling. The full model, which integrates both time-series signals and missingness information, achieves 10-15% higher accuracy and macro F1 scores across all Big Five traits compared to the model without time-series signals and missingness. These findings provide evidence that personality can be inferred from search-related gaze behavior and demonstrate the value of incorporating missing gaze data into time-series multimodal modeling.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Imagining Future Digital Assistants at Work: A Study of Task Management Needs

Digital Assistants (DAs) can support workers in the workplace and beyond. However, target user needs are not fully understood, and the functions that workers would ideally want a DA to support require further study. A richer understanding of worker needs could help inform the design of future DAs. We investigate user needs of future workplace DAs using data from a user study of 40 workers over a four-week period. Our qualitative analysis confirms existing research and generates new insight on the role of DAs in managing people's time, tasks, and information. Placing these insights in relation to quantitative analysis of self-reported task data, we highlight how different occupation roles require DAs to take varied approaches to these domains and the effect of task characteristics on the imagined features. Our findings have implications for the design of future DAs in work settings, and we offer some recommendations for reduction to practice.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

ITTC @ TREC 2021 Clinical Trials Track

This paper describes the submissions of the Natural Language Processing (NLP) team from the Australian Research Council Industrial Transformation Training Centre (ITTC) for Cognitive Computing in Medical Technologies to the TREC 2021 Clinical Trials Track. The task focuses on the problem of matching eligible clinical trials to topics constituting a summary of a patient's admission notes. We explore different ways of representing trials and topics using NLP techniques, and then use a common retrieval model to generate the ranked list of relevant trials for each topic. The results from all our submitted runs are well above the median scores for all topics, but there is still plenty of scope for improvement.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Can The Crowd Identify Misinformation Objectively? The Effects of Judgment Scale and Assessor's Background

Truthfulness judgments are a fundamental step in the process of fighting misinformation, as they are crucial to train and evaluate classifiers that automatically distinguish true and false statements. Usually such judgments are made by experts, like journalists for political statements or medical doctors for medical statements. In this paper, we follow a different approach and rely on (non-expert) crowd workers. This of course leads to the following research question: Can crowdsourcing be reliably used to assess the truthfulness of information and to create large-scale labeled collections for information credibility systems? To address this issue, we present the results of an extensive study based on crowdsourcing: we collect thousands of truthfulness assessments over two datasets, and we compare expert judgments with crowd judgments, expressed on scales with various granularity levels. We also measure the political bias and the cognitive background of the workers, and quantify their effect on the reliability of the data provided by the crowd.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The COVID-19 Infodemic: Can the Crowd Judge Recent Misinformation Objectively?

Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We follow the same approach to study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess statements truthfulness during a pandemic. We specifically target statements related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that is still ongoing at the time of the study and has arguably caused an increase of the amount of misinformation that is spreading online (a phenomenon for which the term "infodemic" has been used). By doing so, we are able to address (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue like health and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done: two issues that have not been analyzed in related work. In our experiment, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, as well as to provide evidence for the assessments as a URL and a text justification. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we also report results on many different aspects, including: agreement among workers, the effect of different aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background / bias. We also analyze workers behavior, in terms of queries submitted, URLs found / selected, text justifications, and other behavioral data like clicks and mouse actions collected by means of an ad hoc logger.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access