Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are pleased to host the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS) 2011, held from 13th to 16th of November 2011, in Kobe, Japan. ITS 2011 is the 6th event in a series of annual research workshops and conferences that began in 2006 in Adelaide, Australia as "Table-top", and has subsequently traveled around the world (Tabletop 2007 in Newport, RI, USA; Tabletop and Interactive Surfaces (TIS) 2008 in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, the ACM International Conference ITS 2009 in Banff, Canada, and the ACM International Conference ITS 2010 in Saarbrücken, Germany). ITS has also broadened in scope beyond its original focus on horizontal computer systems and it becomes a premier venue for presenting research in the design and use of new and emerging tabletop and interactive surface technologies. As a still young and very active community, we embrace the growth of the discipline in a wide variety of areas, including innovations in ITS hardware, software, interaction design, and studies expanding our understanding of design considerations of ITS technologies and of their applications in modern society. ITS 2011 will bring together top researchers and practitioners who are interested in both the technical and human aspects of interactive tabletop and surface technologies. As in the last year, ITS 2011 has added a separate day for a doctoral symposium and tutorials before the main conference. We also have co-located workshop Dexis 2011 on November 13th, focusing on the use of interactive surfaces for visual data exploration. We received 96 full paper and note submissions (56 papers and 40 notes) this year. After a thorough review process, the program committee accepted 32 submissions (acceptance rate of 33.3% in total), which include 19 papers (33.9%) and 13 notes (32.5%). Each anonymous submission was assigned primary and secondary program committee members. The primary committee member assigned at least two external reviewers for each submission, and the secondary at least one. After receiving the reviews, both program committee members wrote a meta-review for every submission. The program committee then met in Redmond, WA, USA on August 25 and 26, 2011, to examine each submission and select the top papers. At that moment all acceptances were conditional and they were finally accepted only after the authors provided a final revision addressing the committee's comments.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».