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

Loren Terveen

Loren Terveen contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Human-Computer Interactioncs.CYMachine Learning

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
3topics
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

Opportunities and Barriers for AI Feedback on Meeting Inclusion in Socioorganizational Teams

Inclusion is important for meeting effectiveness, which is in turn central to organizational functioning. One way of improving inclusion in meetings is through feedback, but social dynamics make giving feedback difficult. We propose that AI agents can facilitate feedback exchange by being psychologically safer recipients, and we test this through a meeting system with an AI agent feedback mediator. When delivering feedback, the agent uses the Induced Hypocrisy Procedure, a social psychological technique that prompts behavior change by highlighting value-behavior inconsistencies. In a within-subjects lab study ($n=28$), the agent made speaking times more balanced and improved meeting quality. However, a field study at a small consulting firm ($n=10$) revealed organizational barriers that led to its use for personal reflection rather than feedback exchange. We contribute a novel sociotechnical system for feedback exchange in groups, and empirical findings demonstrating the importance of considering organizational barriers in designing AI tools for organizations.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

"We Need a Woman in Music": Exploring Wikipedia's Values on Article Priority

Wikipedia -- like most peer production communities -- suffers from a basic problem: the amount of work that needs to be done (articles to be created and improved) exceeds the available resources (editor effort). Recommender systems have been deployed to address this problem, but they have tended to recommend work tasks that match individuals' personal interests, ignoring more global community values. In English Wikipedia, discussion about Vital articles constitutes a proxy for community values about the types of articles that are most important, and should therefore be prioritized for improvement. We first analyzed these discussions, finding that an article's priority is considered a function of 1) its inherent importance and 2) its effects on Wikipedia's global composition. One important example of the second consideration is balance, including along the dimensions of gender and geography. We then conducted a quantitative analysis evaluating how four different article prioritization methods -- two from prior research -- would affect Wikipedia's overall balance on these two dimensions; we found significant differences among the methods. We discuss the implications of our results, including particularly how they can guide the design of recommender systems that take into account community values, not just individuals' interests.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Keeping Community in the Loop: Understanding Wikipedia Stakeholder Values for Machine Learning-Based Systems

On Wikipedia, sophisticated algorithmic tools are used to assess the quality of edits and take corrective actions. However, algorithms can fail to solve the problems they were designed for if they conflict with the values of communities who use them. In this study, we take a Value-Sensitive Algorithm Design approach to understanding a community-created and -maintained machine learning-based algorithm called the Objective Revision Evaluation System (ORES)---a quality prediction system used in numerous Wikipedia applications and contexts. Five major values converged across stakeholder groups that ORES (and its dependent applications) should: (1) reduce the effort of community maintenance, (2) maintain human judgement as the final authority, (3) support differing peoples' differing workflows, (4) encourage positive engagement with diverse editor groups, and (5) establish trustworthiness of people and algorithms within the community. We reveal tensions between these values and discuss implications for future research to improve algorithms like ORES.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Keeping Designers in the Loop: Communicating Inherent Algorithmic Trade-offs Across Multiple Objectives

Artificial intelligence algorithms have been used to enhance a wide variety of products and services, including assisting human decision making in high-stakes contexts. However, these algorithms are complex and have trade-offs, notably between prediction accuracy and fairness to population subgroups. This makes it hard for designers to understand algorithms and design products or services in a way that respects users' goals, values, and needs. We proposed a method to help designers and users explore algorithms, visualize their trade-offs, and select algorithms with trade-offs consistent with their goals and needs. We evaluated our method on the problem of predicting criminal defendants' likelihood to re-offend through (i) a large-scale Amazon Mechanical Turk experiment, and (ii) in-depth interviews with domain experts. Our evaluations show that our method can help designers and users of these systems better understand and navigate algorithmic trade-offs. This paper contributes a new way of providing designers the ability to understand and control the outcomes of algorithmic systems they are creating.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Patterns of Patient and Caregiver Mutual Support Connections in an Online Health Community

Online health communities offer the promise of support benefits to users, in particular because these communities enable users to find peers with similar experiences. Building mutually supportive connections between peers is a key motivation for using online health communities. However, a user's role in a community may influence the formation of peer connections. In this work, we study patterns of peer connections between two structural health roles: patient and non-professional caregiver. We examine user behavior in an online health community where finding peers is not explicitly supported. This context lets us use social network analysis methods to explore the growth of such connections in the wild and identify users' peer communication preferences. We investigated how connections between peers were initiated, finding that initiations are more likely between two authors who have the same role and who are close within the broader communication network. Relationships are also more likely to form and be more interactive when authors have the same role. Our results have implications for the design of systems supporting peer communication, e.g. peer-to-peer recommendation systems.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access