Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 43/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
applied learning or working session agenda analysis
Heal Workshop 2024
This applied learning or working session in Technology / AI / Startup shows 52 visible agenda rows from heal-workshop.github.io and scores 43/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Future-of-Work Fit; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The public record does not show follow-up or tracking, so the score should be read as... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Learning Transfer; the thinnest visible pillars are Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, and Personalization. The extracted agenda preview includes 70 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Presentation; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Knowledge Transfer.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?67
Participation Architecture - 67/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?5
Follow Through - 5/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?48
Problem Specificity - 48/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.
Personalization?52
Personalization - 52/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?16
Network Design - 16/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?60
Learning Transfer - 60/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?42
Evidence Maturity - 42/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.Missing: Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Future-of-Work Fit?64
Future-of-Work Fit - 64/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (5/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Problem Specificity (48/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
57 percent of the 70 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventCall for Participation Key Information Agenda Latest VersionPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventCHI 2024 WorkshopWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventKeynote SpeakersKeynoteExpert framing+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
9:00 AM - 9:15 AMKeynote IKeynoteExpert framing+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
9:15 AM - 10:15 AMSpeaker: Dr. Wei XuPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventCoffee Break (Poster)BreakShowcase+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
10:15 AM - 10:30 AMHighlight Paper PresentationPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
10:30 AM - 11:30 AMGroup Activity I - Challenges IdentificationPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
11:30 AM - 12:30 PMLunch BreakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
12:30 PM - 2:00 PMKeynote IIKeynoteExpert framing+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
2:00 PM - 3:00 PMSpeaker: Dr. Sherry Tongshuang WuPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventPoster Session + Coffee BreakBreakShowcase+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
3:00 PM - 4:15 PMGroup Activity II - Framework, Method, and ToolingPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
4:15 PM - 5:15 PMClosing RemarkClosingOrientation+
Format · BroadcastClosingFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventWorkshop papersWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop date : Sunday, May 12, 2024WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop location : Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (Hybrid)WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventContact : heal.workshop@gmail.comWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventHEAL@CHI'24UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCall for Participation Key Information Agenda Latest VersionUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventCHI 2024 WorkshopWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event→ Submission SiteUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventThis workshop aims to address the current ''evaluation crisis'' in LLM research and practice by bringing together HCI and AI researchers and practitioners to rethink LLM evaluation and auditing from a human-centered perspective. The recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly impacted numerous and will impact more, real-world applications. However, these models also pose significant risks to individuals and society. To mitigate these issues and guide future model development, responsible evaluation and auditing of LLMs are essential.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe CHI 2024 Workshop on H uman-centered E valuation and A uditing of L anguage Models (HEAL@CHI'24) will explore topics around understanding stakeholders' needs and goals with evaluation and auditing LMs, establishing human-centered evaluation and auditing methods, developing tools and resources to support these methods, building community, and fostering collaboration.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventKeynote SpeakersKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe primary goal of this one-day workshop is to bring together HCI and AI researchers from academia, industry, and non-profits to share their ongoing efforts around evaluating and auditing language models.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:00 AM - 9:15 AMKeynote IKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9:15 AM - 10:15 AMSpeaker: Dr. Wei XuUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCoffee Break (Poster)Poster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:15 AM - 10:30 AMHighlight Paper PresentationPresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:30 AM - 11:30 AMGroup Activity I - Challenges IdentificationUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
11:30 AM - 12:30 PMLunch BreakMealWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsMealA pacing block. Can carry unstructured networking, not scored as participant work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:30 PM - 2:00 PMKeynote IIKeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
2:00 PM - 3:00 PMSpeaker: Dr. Sherry Tongshuang WuUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPoster Session + Coffee BreakPoster SessionShowcase+
Format · ShowcasePoster SessionPresenters display work; attendees browse and ask questions. Some interaction, not structured work.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
3:00 PM - 4:15 PMGroup Activity II - Framework, Method, and ToolingUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:15 PM - 5:15 PMClosing RemarkUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:15 PM - 5:30 PMAll times displayed in the program are in local Honolulu, Hawaii time (GMT-10)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop papersWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe Impossibility of Fair LLMs - Jacy Reese Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Alexander D'Amour, Chenhao Tan [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/1theimpossibilityoffairLLMs.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluation of an LLM in Identifying Logical Fallacies - Gionnieve Lim, Simon Perrault [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/2evaluationofanllminidenti.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPrediction-Powered Ranking of Large Language Models - Ivi Chatzi, Eleni Straitouri, Suhas Thejaswi, Manuel Gomez Rodriguez [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/3predictionpoweredrankingof.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventA Framework for Evaluating Harms from Design Patterns in Human-AI Interfaces - Lujain Ibrahim, Luc Rocher, Ana Valdivia [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/4evaluatingharmsfromdesignp.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating Irrationality in Large Language Models and Open Research Questions - Dana R Alsagheer, Rabimba Karanjai, Weidong Shi, Nour Diallo, Yang Lu, Suha Beydoun, Qiaoning Zhang [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/6evaluatingirrationalityinla.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating Large Language Models: Stigma and Opioid Use Disorder - Shravika Mittal, Mai ElSherief, Tanu Mitra, Munmun De Choudhury [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/7evaluatinglargelanguagemode.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAffirmativeAI: Towards LGBTQ+ Friendly Audit Frameworks for Large Language Models - Yinru Long, Zilin Ma, Yiyang Mei, Zhaoyuan Su [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/11affirmativeaitowardslgbtqfr.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventA Case for Moving Beyond "Gold Data" in AI Safety Evaluation - Mark Diaz, Ding Wang, Alicia Parrish, Lora Aroyo, Christopher M Homan, Gregory Serapio-García, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Alex Taylor [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/12acaseformovingbeyondgold.pdf)HighlightWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventDoes GPT Distrust Algorithms? Evaluating Large Language Models for Algorithm Aversion - Jessica Bo, Lillio Mok, Jiessie Tie, Ashton Anderson [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/13doesgptdistrustalgorithms.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventExploring Subjectivity for more Human-Centric Assessment of Biases in Large Language Models - Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Sharon Ferguson, Anastasia Kuzminykh [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/21exploringsubjectivityformor.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTowards a Holistic Evaluation of LLM Generated Code for Exploratory Visual Analysis - Anamaria Crisan, Enamul Hoque [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/22towardsaholisticevaluation.pdf)HighlightWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventExploring the Potential of the Large Language Models (LLMs) in Identifying and Explaining Misleading News Headlines - Md Main Uddin Rony, Md Mahfuzul Haque, Mohammad Ali, Ahmed Shatil Alam, Naeemul Hassan [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/23exploringthepotentialofthe.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTales from the Wild West: Crafting Scenarios to Audit Bias in LLMs - Katherine-Marie Robinson, Violet Turri, Shannon K Gallagher, Carol J Smith [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/24talesfromthewildwestcraft.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLessons from Developing and Evaluating LLMs for Data Visualization - Qianwen Wang [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/29lessonsfromdevelopingandev.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTowards an Evaluation of LLM-Generated Inspiration by Developing and Validating Inspiration Scale - Hyungyu Shin, Seulgi choi, Ji Yong Cho, Sahar Admoni, Hyunseung Lim, Taewan Kim, Hwajung Hong, Moontae Lee, Juho Kim [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/30towardsanevaluationofllmg.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventCheckEval: Robust Evaluation Framework using Large Language Model via Checklist - Yukyung Lee, JoongHoon Kim, Jaehee Kim, Hyowon Cho, Pilsung Kang [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/31checkevalrobustevaluationfr.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventHow to Reflect Diverse People's Perspectives in Large-Scale LLM-based Evaluations? - Yoonjoo Lee, Tae Soo Kim, Juho Kim [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/34howtoreflectdiversepeople.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating the LLM Agents for Simulating Humanoid Behavior - Chaoran Chen, Bingsheng Yao, Yanfang Ye, Dakuo Wang, Toby Jia-Jun Li [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/35evaluatingthellmagentsfor.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventInvolving Affected Communities and Their Knowledge for Bias Evaluation in Large Language Models - Vildan Salikutluk, Elifnur Dogan, Isabelle Clev, Frank Jäkel [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/38involvingaffectedcommunities.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMetrics to Meaning: Enabling Human-Interpretable Language Model Assessment - Jay Oza, Hrishikesh Yadav [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/39metricstomeaningenablinghu.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvalLM: Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Model Prompts on User-Defined Criteria - Tae Soo Kim, Yoonjoo Lee, Jamin Shin, Young-Ho Kim, Juho Kim [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/9evallminteractiveevaluation.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventIncorporating Multi-Stakeholder Perspectives in Evaluating and Auditing of Health Chatbots - Eunkyung Jo, Young-Ho Kim, Yuin Jeong, SoHyun Park, Daniel Epstein [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/10incorporatingmultistakeholde.pdf)HighlightWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWikibench: Community-Driven Data Curation for AI Evaluation on Wikipedia - Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Aaron Halfaker, Zirui Cheng, Jiwoo Kim, Meng-Hsin Wu, Tongshuang Wu, Ken Holstein, Haiyi Zhu [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/14wikibenchcommunitydrivendat.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTowards Designing a Safe and Reliable LLM-driven Chatbot for Children - Woosuk Seo, Sun Young Park, Mark Ackerman, Chan-Mo Yang, Young-Ho Kim [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/20towardsdesigningasafeandr.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventEvaluating and Auditing LLM-Driven Chatbots for Psychiatric Patients in Clinical Mental Health Settings - Taewan Kim, Seolyeong, Hyun Ah Kim, Su-woo Lee, Hwajung Hong, Chanmo Yang, Young-Ho Kim [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/25evaluatingandauditingllmdr.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventLLM Comparator: Visual Analytics for Side-by-Side Evaluation of Large Language Models - Minsuk Kahng, Ian Tenney, Mahima Pushkarna, Michael Xieyang Liu, James Wexler, Emily Reif, Krystal Kallarackal, Minsuk Chang, Michael Terry, Lucas Dixon [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/26llmcomparatorvisualanalytic.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event"It's the only thing I can trust": Envisioning Large Language Model Use by Autistic Workers for Communication Assistance - JiWoong Jang, Sanika Moharana, Patrick Carrington, Andrew Begel [[Paper]](https://heal-workshop.github.io/chi2024papers/28itstheonlythingicantru.pdf)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop date : Sunday, May 12, 2024WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop location : Honolulu, Hawaii, USA (Hybrid)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventContact : heal.workshop@gmail.comWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWe welcome participants who work on topics related to supporting human-centered evaluation and auditing of language models. Interested participants will be asked to contribute a short paper to the workshop. Topics of interest include, but not limited to:Opening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 44/100 and verified 44/100, then capped for no visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an applied learning or working session, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and future-of-work fit and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Future-of-Work Fit, and Learning Transfer. Weakest signals: Follow Through, Network Design, and Evidence Maturity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from heal-workshop.github.io. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, Personalization.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No visible follow-up, progress monitoring, or longitudinal tracking.
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- 42: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
Review flags
- Fourth-loop score cap: No visible follow-up, tracking, or impact mechanism.
- No source-backed follow-up, validation, baseline, tracking, or impact evidence.
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- High cleanup rate: many extracted rows were hidden or merged as fragments.
- Original category was unknown; publication category is inferred.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2024_chi2025_acm_org_for_attendees_program_at_a_glance_workshops_chi_2024_heal_w"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Technology / AI / Startup events scored on the same eight pillars.