MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482124653

Superflick: a natural and efficient technique for long-distance object placement on digital tables

2006· article· en· W1482124653 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Reetz, Carl Gutwin, Tadeusz Stach, Miguel A. Nacenta, Sriram Subramanian

Bibliographic record

VenueGraphics Interface · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceRadarThrowingObject (grammar)Table (database)UsabilityAffordanceComputer graphics (images)Human–computer interactionEngineeringData mining
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moving objects past arms' reach is a common action in both real-world and digital tabletops. In the real world, the most common way to accomplish this task is by throwing or sliding the object across the table. Sliding is natural, easy to do, and fast: however, in digital tabletops, few existing techniques for long-distance movement bear any resemblance to these real-world motions. We have designed and evaluated two tabletop interaction techniques that closely mimic the action of sliding an object across the table. Flick is an open-loop technique that is extremely fast. Superflick is based on Flick, but adds a correction step to improve accuracy for small targets. We carried out two user studies to compare these techniques to a fast and accurate proxy-based technique, the radar view. In the first study, we found that Flick is significantly faster than the radar for large targets, but is inaccurate for small targets. In the second study, we found no differences between Superflick and radar for either time or accuracy. Given the simplicity and learnability of flicking, our results suggest that throwing-based techniques have promise for improving the usability of digital tables.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGraphics InterfaceSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207