MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7025551912

Welcome to the TEI’10 Proceedings

2010· article· en· W7025551912 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueIT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMathematics
ThématiqueProbability and Statistical Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEmbodied cognitionSession (web analytics)Key (lock)Field (mathematics)Ubiquitous computing
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We welcome you to the proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction -- TEI'10, held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 25th -27th of January 2010.<br/><br/>TEI'10 continues the pursuit of key areas of innovation in respect to tangible, embedded, and embodied interactions. These concerns include the interlinking of digital and physical worlds through tangible and embodied interaction and the computational augmentation of everyday objects and environments in new ways through embedded technologies. Research and practice in these innovative areas lead to works of tangible interfaces, graspable interfaces, physical computing, whole-body interaction, gesture-based interfaces, and interactive surfaces. Designing such systems requires interdisciplinary thinking as their creation not only encompasses software, electronics, and mechanics, but also form, aesthetics, and social impact. The high quality, original, and diverse works in these proceedings is a testament to the growth and importance of the field of tangible computing.<br/><br/>The call for papers attracted 160 submissions from approximately 20 countries spanning Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. All submissions were peer and blind reviewed and received at least three independent expert reviews. In total, 54 papers were accepted for an acceptance rate of 34%. The papers are a mix of 2, 4, 8 pages in length. From these contributions, the program at the conference includes 16 long talks, 8 short talks, 1 short talk and a demo, 22 demos, and 7 posters. We are proud to continue the tradition of a plenary session for all talks, demos and posters. The paper sessions are organized along five themes. Bridging the Physical and Digital Worlds is at the center of tangible computing investigations that explore the intersections of computation and physicality. Toolkits and Enabling Technologies explores the functionality of applications and technologies for users and the tools for designers and developers. Physical Interactions, Perspectives, and Design Techniques represent the emerging and refined thinking in the field that investigates embodiment, reflections and frameworks, and emerging techniques. Materials, Garments and Lights uncovers the serious investigations into new materials and expressions for tangible computing. Lastly, Learning through Physical Interaction contributes to the invaluable intersections between tangible computing and learning. In addition, the demonstrations and posters session gives concrete and vibrant evidence for the serious and diverse research in the field.<br/><br/>We are also proud to include innovations in the conference program this year. A new track was created known as Explorations aimed at attracting thought provoking, evocative, visually and sensually rich work by a diverse group of creators. 46 submissions were received from which an expert jury accepted 10 contributions. These contributions are interwoven into the papers and demonstration tracks at the conference. Another new track is Studios, a series of 21 workshop sessions open to all conference participants that offer novel hands-on experiences ranging from the exploration of new development toolkits, to prototype design techniques, and the use of emerging or traditional materials in creatively applied way. Lastly, the Graduate Student Consortium reflects the essential need for the participation and development of new scholars in the areas of tangible computing. 38 submissions were received and 13 contributions were accepted after blind reviews by at least three independent and expert reviewers per submission.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,318
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1710,014

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,048
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,244 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen)Même sujetProbability and Statistical ResearchTravaux en français237 207