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

Emilie Poirson

Emilie Poirson contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Information RetrievalArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Languagephysics.med-phSocial and Information Networks

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
5topics
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

3 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Mining Changes in User Expectation Over Time From Online Reviews

Customers post online reviews at any time. With the timestamp of online reviews, they can be regarded as a flow of information. With this characteristic, designers can capture the changes in customer feedback to help set up product improvement strategies. Here we propose an approach for capturing changes of user expectation on product affordances based on the online reviews for two generations of products. First, the approach uses a rule-based natural language processing method to automatically identify and structure product affordances from review text. Then, inspired by the Kano model which classifies preferences of product attributes in five categories, conjoint analysis is used to quantitatively categorize the structured affordances. Finally, changes of user expectation can be found by applying the conjoint analysis on the online reviews posted for two successive generations of products. A case study based on the online reviews of Kindle e-readers downloaded from amazon.com shows that designers can use our proposed approach to evaluate their product improvement strategies for previous products and develop new product improvement strategies for future products.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Mining customer product reviews for product development: A summarization process

This research set out to identify and structure from online reviews the words and expressions related to customers' likes and dislikes to guide product development. Previous methods were mainly focused on product features. However, reviewers express their preference not only on product features. In this paper, based on an extensive literature review in design science, the authors propose a summarization model containing multiples aspects of user preference, such as product affordances, emotions, usage conditions. Meanwhile, the linguistic patterns describing these aspects of preference are discovered and drafted as annotation guidelines. A case study demonstrates that with the proposed model and the annotation guidelines, human annotators can structure the online reviews with high inter-agreement. As high inter-agreement human annotation results are essential for automatizing the online review summarization process with the natural language processing, this study provides materials for the future study of automatization.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2015arXiv

Assessing the differences between numerical methods and real experiments for the evaluation of reach envelopes of the human body

The use of static human body dimensions to assess the human accessibility is an essential part of an ergonomic approach in user-centered design. Assessments of reach capability are commonly performed by exercising external anthropometry of human body parts, which may be found in anthropometric databases, to numerically define the reach area of an intended user population. The result is a reach envelope determined entirely by the segment lengths, without taking into account external variables, as the nature of the task or the physical capacities of the subject, which may influence the results. Considering the body as a simple assembly of static parts of different anthropometry is limiting. In this paper, the limit of validity of this approach is assessed by comparing the reach envelopes obtained by this method to those obtained with a simple two-dimensional experimental reaching task of a panel of subjects. Forty subjects experimentally evaluated the reach, first with the body constrained and second unconstrained. Results were recorded and compared with those obtained numerically with a model, based on their own anthropometric characteristics, previously measured. A statistical study of the results allowed the definition of the shape of a confidence bound containing the real reach envelope. The results indicated important differences between the experiment and the numerical evaluation of the reach envelope.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access