Zoekresultaten

< Back Workshop: Best Practices for Responsible News Recommender Design 24 Sept 2024 Our takeaways from the workshop part of the NWO-funded project "Rethinking news algorithms" On 23rd of September, Aina, Hanne, and Ulysse traveled to the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam for the workshop "Best practices for responsible news recommender design," part of the NWO-funded project "Rethinking news algorithms". This one-day event aimed to foster collaboration between academia and industry, focusing on the ethical design of news recommender systems. Aina and Hanne presented initial insights from their systematic literature review that aims to uncover the organizational challenges, opportunities and social implications of news recommendation systems studied in Western media systems. One significant observation from the day highlighted the challenges in aligning all aspects of responsible news recommenders with diverse stakeholder goals. A key takeaway from our engaging conversations with colleagues and industry professionals is that diversity is frequently considered essential for the development of responsible recommenders, given the close relationship between the democratic function of news and media pluralism. The workshop enabled a cooperative sharing of ideas, fostering the co-creation of optimal strategies for responsible news algorithms. Attendees also pinpointed prospective research paths, underscoring the necessity of ongoing interdisciplinary collaboration to explore the societal implications of these systems. Previous Next

< Back Looking back at IUI 2025 31 Mar 2025 Ulysse attended the conference and presented at the AXAI workshop Pristine beaches, a bright turquoise sea, impressive rock formations and pink flamingo’s… Cagliari has it all. Despite the undeniable beauty of Sardinia’s capital, the most memorable element of my stay was however related to Intelligent User Interfaces. You read that right: I was lucky enough to attend the yearly conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) - which turned out to be an exceptionally inspirational and instructive experience. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that my interest was sparked by the central theme - the conjunction between Artificial Intelligence (AI), and how User Interfaces (UI) can optimally accommodate for them. But the real experience went above and beyond my initial expectations. In this article, I break it down in 3 key elements. 1. The overarching theme: AI should benefit the user Believe it or not, but the word “user” was mentioned even more often than “LLM” (see paragraph 3; “There is no escaping LLMs”). Shouldn’t be too surprising for a conference focusing on user interfaces, right? Well, it struck me that this community really tries to model user preferences and -needs accurately, for which it draws a lot more often from cognitive and behavioral research than is common in computer science. As I’m also considering to conduct user experiments to evaluate the effects of explanations on the complex experience of the system, this focus meant that I learned a lot about suitable methodologies. During the course of the week, my belief in the importance of putting the user central has been fortified as well. Now more than ever, it is important to guard user agency and autonomy, and to prevent over-reliance on increasingly capable and connected AI systems. The current generative AI boom raises a lot of concerns among various affected stakeholders. Sometimes, it feels like these tools are at least partly exploitative in nature - a concern that was vividly expressed by professor Giulio Jacucci in his opening keynote at the HAI-GEN workshop. 2. The AXAI workshop: Explanations should be adaptive to be impactful Throughout the presentations in the AXAI (Adaptive eXplainable AI) workshop session, I learned that adaptivity can be geared towards multiple users and use cases, and is therefore often interpreted differently by various researchers and fields. Some focus on adapting explanations to the user at hand, in terms of content, or complexity. Others consider adaption to context. In any case, it seems that LLMs offer a great avenue to increase the level of adaptation in many cases, although this may spark concerns regarding trustworthiness. Related to that topic, I presented our paper ( link ), co-authored with Lien and supervised by Annelien. What set it apart was mainly its ridiculously long title: “Mitigating Misleadingness in LLM-Generated Natural Language Explanations for Recommender Systems: Ensuring Broad Truthfulness Through Factuality and Faithfulness”. Not exactly the title of Sabrina Carpenter’s next hit, but it certainly sparked some lively discussion. I opened my presentation with a straightforward example of gender bias in a job recommender: it generated the exact same “high-quality” explanation for two different users—a female designer recommended design jobs and a male designer steered toward management roles. This example served as a way to illustrate the benefit of incorporating uncertainty and interactive counterfactuals into explanations, to enable greater transparency and scrutability. I recognized a similar call for communicating uncertainty as a means to obtain transparency in Prof. Q. Vera Liao’s keynote on Thursday. I was also pleased to see Prof. Turchi present “Talking Back - human input and explanations to interactive AI systems“, an inspiring study on interactive counterfactuals using SHAP values as sliders. It sparked my interest in further exploring the integration of interactive explanations with SHAP in content-based recommender systems. My presentation then proceeded with stating the difference between explanations and justifications, and how LLMs enable the generation of plausible justifications at scale. This can pose a problem of unfounded trust in recommender systems, especially since earlier research has shown that the mere presence of explanations already enhances the trust and item acceptance. This underscores the importance of truthful explanations - which brought me to the core of my presentation: to assess “truthfulness”, we should agree on a definition and an operationalization. This is where I propose to frame truthfulness as “providing accurate information”, consisting of both factuality and faithfulness. Unfortunately, we often see that different research disciplines consider different aspects of truthfulness: while computer science works often focus on factuality, social science merely investigates faithfulness. Luckily, as Krzysztof Gajos mentioned in Wednesday’s morning panel, the field of IUI is well-positioned to bridge these different perspectives into truly useful interfaces. Slide from AXAI presentation: "Defining truthfulness" I proceeded with mentioning the 4 evaluation perspectives to assess explanation quality in recommender systems, as proposed by Ge et al., while also mentioning the 7 explanation goals as defined by Tintarev in 2007. I was curious if the audience would deem this evaluation method useful outside of recommender systems as well, and it indeed proved to be fertile ground for discussion. While most workshop participants agreed that the dimensions could be useful, the explanation goal of “persuasion” was contested, as this should be seen as a side-effect or external result, not something to optimize for. To end my presentation, I went over some possible mitigation strategies that focus on prompting, interface and model-based approaches (all are further discussed in the paper). Slide from AXAI presentation: "Mitigation strategies for LLM-generated misleading explanations" Besides the "Talking back" paper, the presentations most relevant to my area of interest in this session were "Toward a Human-Centered Metric for Evaluating Trust in Artificial Intelligence Systems" and "'Loss in Value': What it reveals about WHO an explanation serves well and WHEN". By the way, in the morning, I attended another great workshop: HAI-GEN, in which the shift to an intent-based paradigm was stressed multiple times. I was very happy to hear this, as I’m also convinced that we are effectively moving to a new way of interaction with our systems, were we move from command-based interaction towards a more natural way of communicating our goals to digital systems. As far as I’m aware, the term “intent-based interaction” was coined by Jakob Nielsen in a now-famous blog post . I find this very inspiring and consider it one of the main guiding threads for my research. There is no escaping LLMs As announced in the opening talk, I indeed noticed that LLMs were ubiquitous. From self-improving LLM-agents that learn to play Minecraft, to LLMs that optimize meeting schedules: a lot of authors (including myself) reported on the promises and perils of incorporating language models to enhance interactivity, accessibility or automation. The popularity of LLMs should however not be mistaken for devotion. Many times I realized, as a scientific community, we have the privilege to be critical, and look beyond the hype - so that we can report on both the opportunities as well as the limitations of LLMs. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be excited about the seemingly endless possibilities of this new technology of course. But as was rightfully highlighted by Prof. Burnett, we should consider it in a responsible way. By doing so, we can provide valuable insights that help to steer the development and implementation of AI-models beyond purely profit-driven goals. Conclusion: An inspiring conference at the heart of my research interests This post could have been much longer if I had included all my notes. I'll end it here for now, but in the coming weeks, I hope to frequently revisit these notes to reignite the inspiration I felt from attending the conference, listening to speakers, admiring impressive research projects, and meeting some of the most influential HCI researchers. Two memorable encounters will forever remain in my mind: the first was a lunch conversation with Professor Ted Selker, the creator of the well-known red pointing stick on my ThinkPad (though there's a more familiar term for it; if you know, you know). The second? A close encounter with a startled yet adorably cute beaver during a run around Cagliari’s stunning salt mines. I hope to reconnect with many of the inspiring individuals I met at the conference in the future. In the meantime, let’s continue our ongoing pursuit of the perfect intelligent interface. Previous Next

< Back Call for Papers Special Issue 3 Feb 2025 Special Issue on Public Service Media in the Age of Platforms A new special issue of Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies , edited by Hanne Bruun, Catherine Johnson, Tim Raats , and Vilde Schanke Sundet, seeks to explore the challenges traditional PSM organisations are facing in audience retention, content production, and platform dependency. While much research has focused on the political and economic dimensions of platformisation, there remains a significant gap in comparative studies of the organisational practices and cultural outputs of PSM organisations worldwide. This special issue aims to address this gap by adopting a comparative lens. The editors invite contributions that examine PSM through comparative methodologies, including cross-national studies, comparisons across policy, organisational practices, and cultural production, and mixed-method approaches. Submissions that go beyond Western-centric perspectives are especially encouraged. Suggested Topics Include: Comparative analysis of changing organisational cultures in PSM PSM commissioning, publishing, and distribution practices in different contexts Cross-platform and cross-national comparisons of PSM programming and content Mixed-method approaches to understanding PSM policy, production, and texts Theoretical and methodological innovations in comparative PSM research Key Dates: Abstract submission deadline: 4 April 2025 (500-750 words) Notification of acceptance: 5 May 2025 Full article submission deadline: 22 September 2025 Researchers interested in contributing should submit their abstracts to PSMspecialissue@leeds.ac.uk . This is a unique opportunity to contribute to an urgent and timely discussion on the evolving role of PSM in the platform era. Don't miss this opportunity to share your research! ⏩️ https://psm-ap.com/comparative-approaches-to-public-service-media-in-the-age-of-platforms/ Previous Next

< Back Ciao from EMMA in Rome! 5 Jun 2025 Our presentations at the emma Conference 2025 On the first day of the EMMA Conference, Aina, Hanne, and Pieter joined over 20 other PhD students from all over Europe for the inspiring PhD Workshop. In small groups, under the guidance of an experienced researcher, each student got the opportunity to present some issues related to their PhD track, delving into theoretical frameworks, methodological approaches, data analysis, the writing process, and mental challenges such as dealing with impostor syndrome, The diversity of research themes and perspectives is of great value to our three PhD’ers as their starting the third year of their track. The workshop provided room for deepening, exchange, and building a valuable network of fellow researchers. And of course, there was also time to enjoy the sunshine, have an espresso, Aperol Spritz, and taste some Italian delicacies! 😋🇮🇹🍕 The second day of the EMMA Conference was dominated by fascinating presentations, including that of our colleague Aina , who presented her research with great flair. Aina’s ongoing research (as part of the ALGEPI project ) investigates how Europe’s AI regulatory frameworks—ranging from the EU’s AI Act and European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) to UNESCO and Council of Europe guidelines and national AI strategies in Belgium, France, and Spain—are or are not reshaping newsroom governance. The goal of this research is to explore the intersection between regulation and journalism more closely trying to understand how AI regulation translates into newsroom realities across European contexts. Through a two‐step approach of document analysis and interviews with legal experts, media managers, and practitioners, she discussed the impact of both hard and soft law in the journalistic context as well as media‐tailored AI policies that balance compliance with editorial independence. Next to Aina’s insights, it was inspiring to hear from other research themes and get some findings from other studies. After a strong day at the conference, we had a chance to explore beautiful Rome and do some sightseeing. The day ended in style with a delicious buffet full of authentic Italian dishes.🍝🍦 On day three of the EMMA Conference, it was Hanne and Pieter's turn to present their research. Together, they gave an engaging joint presentation in which they shared a comparative analysis of how decision-making around recommender systems for media distribution is shaped in commercial media companies and public broadcasters. Building upon the framework of Smets et al (2022), they investigate how the strategic perspective on integrating recommender systems differs in profit-oriented organizations and PSM. By integrating their individual case studies, they offered valuable insights into the divergent strategic goals, recommendation purposes, and the implications for the recommender system design. The take-away? There are some similar strategic goals and recommendation purposes for editorial, commercial, and technological stakeholders in both types of media organizations. Nevertheless, the interpretation of concepts such as 'relevant' and 'engagement' differs based on the organizational cultures in profit-driven and public service media. Slide of presentation: Preliminary findings on shared overarching strategic goals and recommendation purposes For those who cannot get enough of Pieter , he also gave an individual presentation afterwards in which he elaborated on his case study work on Flemish public broadcaster VRT. With a focus on the tensions and possible conflicts that arise between stakeholders in the decision-making processes that shape the recommender system development, his presentation elaborated on the stakeholders involved at PSM and the implications of (dis) alignment of their strategic interests. His VRT deep dive hinted at the merits of a stronger involvement of indirect stakeholders for public service delivery and provided learnings on how PSM could tackle future structural integrations of technological innovations, for example, that of generative AI, which was a heavily debated topic at this conference. Previous Next

< Back Policy Brief on Public Service Media in Belgium 27 Mar 2025 Findings and recommendations on the organisational and cultural challenges facing PSM in Belgium In this new policy brief Tim Raats and Cataline Iordache share results from the latest research conducted during the second year of the PSM-AP project . Their findings show that Public Service Media (PSM) organizations in Belgium, being RTBF (French-speaking) and VRT (Flemish) face growing competition from global tech giants such as Netflix, Apple, Google, and Amazon. This requires a transition into fully digital, online-first broadcasters. While both are integrating digital tools and skills, structural barriers rooted in traditional broadcasting, such as bureaucracy and departmental silos, slow down this transformation. They are adapting their commissioning and distribution strategies to better meet audience needs while maintaining their public service mission and managing brand perception. However, their digital transition differs: VRT is positioning VRT MAX as the central platform for content, whereas RTBF struggles to rebrand Auvio beyond a catch-up service, as linear TV is still dominant for reaching audiences. Their study identifies the following four key factors that shape the way in which both Belgian PSM organizations are managing the rise of internet delivery and increasing competition with international streamers: If you want to learn more about the outcomes of in-depth interviews with employees in both PSM organizations, have a look at the full policy brief here . Previous Next

< Back Diversity in VOD services: Seminar highlights from Madrid 28 Oct 2024 Throwback on the international seminar on diversity and VOD services Tim Raats and Catalina Iordache participated in the international seminar on diversity and Video-on-Demand (VOD) services in Madrid, hosted by the Diversidad Audiovisual research group at University Carlos III Madrid. This event brought together scholars, industry experts, and policymakers to discuss the challenges and opportunities for promoting diverse content in the increasingly globalized VOD landscape. Tim Raats contributed to the discussion on quotas for European works, presenting on October 24 during a panel focused on promoting European and Spanish content. His talk examined the importance of quota regulations and content prominence to ensure visibility for European productions, underscoring how these measures can support local cultural diversity on international streaming platforms. Catalina Iordache also presented on the same day, addressing the financial impact of foreign streaming platforms on European fiction series. Speaking in a panel on investment and financing of European works, she shared insights into how international players like Netflix and Amazon Prime are contributing to and reshaping the European audiovisual ecosystem by funding local productions. The seminar recordings and a full list of panels are available on the Diversidad Audiovisual website , offering a wealth of information on the dynamics of diversity in the digital streaming era. Previous Next

< Back 10 trends in streaming market 1 Mar 2024 Report of the Living Lab project Discover the first deliverable of the Streaming Affordances for Small Media Markets living Lab project, in which the research team outlines 10 key trends in the international streaming market that have an impact on developments in the Flemish market (the report is in Dutch). The 10 trends highlight a diversification of genre and payment modules, and a quest of streamers for revenue and profit rather than market dominance and number of subscribers. Trendrapport voor 'proeftuin Streaming Affordances for Small Media Markets .pdf Download PDF • 3.74MB Previous Next

< Back Impressions of IBC 2025 15 Sept 2025 Ulysse’s Impressions of the International Broadcasting Convention 2025: Shaping The Future. Last Friday September 12, I visited IBC in Amsterdam, the world’s largest annual media and broadcasting conference, to present my new subtitling and translation software subtitle.ai at the EBU booth. Although being invited by Future Media Hubs as founder of Scribewave, I also wanted to share some reflections with the SRP Media audience. The first impression was sheer scale. With more than 116 000 m² (over sixteen football fields!), the RAI venue is almost unfathomable in size. Yet, despite the crowds, check-in was smooth, and within minutes I was wandering through one of the colossal halls. Exhibitors showcased everything from switch boxes and coax cables to cameras, rigs, and Media Asset Management (MAM) systems. Tech giants like Google, Nvidia, Amazon, and Microsoft dominated the floor, while I was glad to see a strong Belgian presence as well, with companies such as Mediagenix , Limecraft , and Cuez underlining the solid position of Belgium’s media technology ecosystem. As expected, Artificial Intelligence (AI) was the dominant theme, though a touch of “AI fatigue” was noticeable. Some exhibitors even highlighted their non-AI solutions as a differentiator. Still, AI was everywhere: from powering camera selection during sports broadcasts, to enabling multimodal media search, and supporting localization workflows. This naturally connects to my own pitch on AI-assisted subtitling. With subtitle.ai, I argued for a balance: maximizing automation while keeping editors firmly in control. Mine is not the only approach in this space: I noticed many competitors in the Future Tech Hall, each with their own take on the challenge of delivering professional, multi-language subtitles. The importance of subtitles is well documented, for example: Facebook found they increase viewing time by 25%, Verizon reported 80% higher completion rates, and Discovery discovered (sorry, bad pun) that subtitles increased overall views by 13%. Add to that the fact that 85% of social media videos are watched without sound, urging younger generations to default to using subtitles (or is it because of today’s often-mumbled dialogue in films and series?) and the case is clear. Subtitles don’t just boost engagement, they’re now a legal requirement too: since June 2025, the European Accessibility Act mandates closed captions for all content published in Europe. So how does subtitle.ai stand out? The software learns from your formatting guidelines (i.e. 42 CPL, two lines, natural breaks, speaker change indicators) to automate as much as possible, while still allowing editors to review and adjust quickly. Once finished, subtitles can be bulk-translated and auto-formatted into more than 90 languages. Because captions are generated at the word level, they can also be repurposed to create engaging social media highlights, with animated, colorful subtitles designed to capture attention. That was the core message of my pitch, delivered alongside a set of inspiring entrepreneurs and innovators in the media space: • Overtone: contextual intelligence for smarter brand placement in articles • Hypecast: a podcasting platform for internal business communication • SentiGeek: extracting usable insights from messy datasets • And last but not least: a live demo of an interactive audience feedback system from the founder of Pimp My Comedy I’m very grateful to VRT and Future Media Hubs for the opportunity to showcase my work, and thankful for the new connections with media professionals. While my first IBC experience was overwhelming in scale, it left me inspired and more enthusiastic than ever about the creative, inventive ways this industry is tackling its biggest challenges. Previous Next

< Back Join ALGEPI's workshop on Epistemic Welfare! 21 Mar 2024 What are the conditions under which the use of algorithms can contribute to, or threaten, epistemic welfare? “Epistemic Welfare“ stands as a cornerstone concept for understanding how individuals and groups interact with knowledge in today’s digital society. How do we define it? What is the conceptual and methodological framework for the concept? ALGEPI is organising its first annual workshop on the 12th of April 2024 from 10:00h to 13:00h CET to discuss what are the conditions under which the use of algorithms can contribute to, or threaten, epistemic welfare and how can we translate this into actionable parameters or metrics. Join us in the discussion! 🕙 Time: 10:00h to 13:00h CET. 🗓️ Date: 12th of April 2024 📍 Venue: Collegium Veteranorum (109-20) – Sint-Michielsstraat 2-4 , 3000 Leuven ( 02.10 – MGR. O. ROMEROZAAL ). Are you planning to attend? Places are limited and will be allocated on a first come first served basis so please let us know by sending us an email ! Registrations will close on the 5th April 2024. In the meantime, if you would like to learn more, have a look at our concept note dissecting the concept of epistemic welfare ! ➡︎ Read the full programme here . Previous Next

< Back Second Annual ALGEPI Workshop 19 May 2025 Insights on AI, Innovation and Media Regulation On April 23rd, 2025, the Université de Namur hosted the second ALGEPI Annual Workshop , bringing together researchers, students, and industry experts to discuss how AI is shaping the media landscape. The day was packed with presentations on artificial intelligence, algorithmic recommender systems, media regulation, and user-centric innovation. Some highlights: Prof. Heritiana Ranaivoson kicked off the day by outlining the ALGEPI project, which is a collaborative effort aiming to tackle the challenges AI poses to epistemic welfare. Dr. Lien Michiels dissected the elusive concept of filter bubbles, stressing the need for diverse, but standardised research methods and validated metrics that consider all stakeholders to gather robust evidence and make meaningful normative judgements about diversity and recommender systems. Aina Errando , Michelle Kulig, and Hanne Vandenbroucke shared some findings from their comparative systematic literature review on the multi-stakeholder challenges and opportunities of news recommender systems in newsrooms. Their work highlights the need for more interdisciplinary and multi-method research to address both organisational and societal challenges, and also to explore the opportunities of news recommender systems more holistically. For the full report on the 2nd ALGEPI workshop, have a look at https://www.algepi.com/ai-innovation-media-regulation-insights-ii-annual-workshop/ Previous Next

< Back New policy brief: International versus local VOD 4 Nov 2024 In a new policy brief and webinar, we present the findings of research on motivations of Flemish viewers ⇩ ENGLISH BELOW ⇩ Tijdens een webinar op 31 oktober presenteerde het Proeftuin Project nieuwe inzichten over de streaminggewoonten en voorkeuren van Vlaamse kijkers. Dit zijn de vijf belangrijkste conclusies: 1. Kijken blijft een collectieve activiteit Streaming biedt gepersonaliseerde aanbevelingen, maar kijkgedrag vertoont nog steeds sterke overeenkomsten met het traditionele, lineaire kijkpatroon. Keuzes worden vaak beïnvloed door sociale omgevingen, en samen kijken blijft een waardevolle culturele activiteit. Het ‘watercooler-effect’, waarbij populaire shows gesprekstof opleveren, blijft relevant, zowel voor internationale hits als lokale titels. 2. Lokale platformen lopen achter met personalisatie, maar voldoen aan verwachtingen Internationale platformen zijn sterk in personalisatie, terwijl Vlaamse kijkers vaak al weten wat ze willen zien op lokale platforms zoals VRT MAX en VTM GO. Hoewel deze platformen geavanceerde aanbevelingssystemen missen, slagen ze erin om te voldoen aan de vraag naar specifieke lokale content. De belangrijkste uitdaging blijft het uitbreiden van de catalogus en de gebruiksvriendelijkheid verbeteren. 3. Vlaamse kijkers waarderen lokale content Lokale platformen zijn de voorkeurskeuze voor Vlaamse kijkers die op zoek zijn naar regionale shows, terwijl grote streamingdiensten zoals Netflix over het algemeen worden geassocieerd met internationale content. Deze waardering voor lokale content geeft platformen zoals VRT MAX en Streamz de kans om zich te onderscheiden, vooral voor kijkers die regionale verhalen belangrijk vinden. 4. Streaming en bioscoop bezoek: Complementaire ervaringen Vlaamse kijkers zien streaming en bioscoopbezoek als aanvullend op elkaar. Degenen die veel streamen, gaan ook vaak naar de bioscoop, vooral vanwege de gedeelde ervaring. Hoewel de prijs voor sommigen een drempel blijft, blijft de bioscoop aantrekkelijk vanwege de unieke sociale sfeer. 5. Lokale content leeft, maar internationale content domineert Vlaamse kijkers associëren lokale platformen sterk met regionale content, maar hun kijkgedrag op grote platformen neigt naar internationale series en films. Deze voorkeur voor globaal aanbod vormt het streaminggedrag, maar lokale platformen blijven inspelen op de vraag naar binnenlandse verhalen en ervaringen. Voor een diepgaandere analyse, bekijk de volledige policybrief op de SMIT-website . ___________________________________ During a webinar on October 31, the Proeftuin Project revealed fresh insights into the habits and preferences of Flemish streaming audiences. Here are the five main takeaways: 1. Watching together remains Streaming may allow for individual recommendations, but watching habits still mirror traditional, linear viewing. Choices are often influenced by social settings, and shared viewing remains a strong cultural activity. The “watercooler effect,” where popular shows spark conversations, is still alive, with both international hits and local titles playing a role. 2. Local platforms lag in personalization but meet viewer expectations While international platforms excel at personalization, Flemish viewers often know exactly what they want to watch on local platforms like VRT MAX and VTM GO. These platforms lack sophisticated recommendation systems, yet they succeed in catering to viewers' demands for specific local content. The main challenge remains expanding their catalog while enhancing usability. 3. Flemish viewers value local content Local platforms are the preferred choice for Flemish audiences seeking regional shows, while major streaming services like Netflix are generally associated with international content. This appreciation for local content allows platforms such as VRT MAX and Streamz to distinguish themselves, particularly for viewers who prioritize regional storytelling. 4. Streaming and cinema are complementary experiences Flemish viewers see streaming and cinema as complementary. Those who stream frequently also tend to visit cinemas, mainly for the shared experience. While price remains a deterrent for some, cinemas remain attractive for their unique social environment. 5. Local content thrives, but international content dominates While Flemish audiences strongly associate local platforms with regional content, their actual viewing behavior on major platforms leans towards international series and films. This preference for global content shapes streaming behavior, yet local platforms continue to meet the demand for domestic stories and experiences. For more information the full policy brief is available on the SMIT website (Dutch only). Previous Next

< Back A glimpse into our work-in-progress 12 Feb 2024 Reflections on the research presented at Etmaal On Thursday 8th and Friday 9th February 2024, Hanne Vandenbroucke and Ulysse Maes attended the 26th edition of Etmaal van Communicatiewetenschap in Rotterdam. At this two-day conference, researchers from Communication Sciences in Belgium and The Netherlands unite to present their projects, get feedback from peers, and be inspired by the work of others. They were invited to present their work-in-progress during the Research Escalator. In this blogpost we highlight the key take-aways from their presentations. Multi-stakeholder approach to news personalization - Hanne Vandenbroucke What lies behind the "For you", "Read more" or "See also" sections on the website or mobile app of your favorite news brand? By conducting stakeholder interviews with professionals working in commercial news organizations operating in Flanders: DPG Media, Mediahuis and Mediafin; We aim to map the development and implementation of recommender systems. The key internal stakeholder groups involved in and impacted by news recommender systems are: (1) the newsroom, (2) the technical development, and (3) the commercial business unit. Based on the stakeholder interviews, we are able to build upon the multi-stakeholder framework of Smets et al. (2022) . The preliminary results give insights in the actual decision-making process for recommender development. News organisations started experimenting with a news recommender system on average 3 years ago. The initial process of trial and error had transformed into an ongoing cycle of adjusting the RS design. In practice both the newsroom and the business unit express their objectives, preconditions and concerns to the product owner who aligns the different perspectives and formulates a concrete set of goals. Next, the technology development team will operationalize these objectives into computational metrics and adjust the recommender system design. Performance data is continuously being collected and monitored. A feedback loop set up to communicate the results of the adjusted recommender to the product owner who – together with the data analytics team – derives insights from the data and report back to the business unit and newsrooms. Exploring the influence of misleading explanations on the perceived quality of recommender systems – Ulysse Maes Nowadays, recommender systems are everywhere: you find them on Amazon, on Netflix and Spotify, for example. These algorithmic curation systems help internet users to efficiently navigate through vast amounts of content. While holding clear advantages in terms of user experience, there are some limitations and normative concerns. One of these concerns stems from the limited transparency they provide. This may lead to distrust and frustration. Adding explanations may yield different results, which depend on your objectives. (Tintarev & Masthoff, 2007) suggest seven goals of explainable recommendations: effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction, scrutability, transparency, trust, and persuasiveness. Note that maximizing for one goal might be beneficial for another (e.g. improving for scrutability- giving users the ability to change the outcomes to their liking- might improve satisfaction). However, optimizing for one goal might also harm other goals. This research specificially dives into the possible conflict between optimizing for persuasiveness and its effects on transparency and trust. By “optimizing for persuasiveness”, we mean creating compelling narratives to persuade users to consume recommended content. For example, when you buy a pair of jeans online, the shop can try to upsell by recommending some white t-shirts and explain the recommendations as “Style advice for the perfect shirt to wear on your new jeans.” A more neutral explanation could be: “Customers also bought.” Persuasion in itself is not problematic, but it might become problematic once it becomes misleading: hiding important information or even lying about the working of the system, or the drivers behind a decision. As explanations are often linked to a conception of transparency, both with end-users and academia, the mere presence of explanations can already lead to increased trust in the system. By crafting compelling but incorrect explanations, it might be possible to manipulate users into consuming certain content, while still giving them a feeling of agency. There are clearly some incentives to create misleading explanations. But do they work? Theory is still inconclusive. While some research mentions the effectiveness of personalized persuasion (Burtell & Woodside, 2023), others highlight the detrimental effects on long-term trust: would platforms really jeopardize this? Another argument against the effectiveness of misleading explanations is that the costs don’t outweigh the benefits – a critique sometimes formulated on explanations in general as well. The field of explainable AI recognizes the immense potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to generate personalized, dynamic explanations at scale. It has already been shown that these explanations can be more persuasive than human-generated texts. One of the reasons why we do not see LLM-generated explanations popping up everywhere, is because of their tendency to “hallucinate” - to make up plausible, but incorrect narratives. Previous Next