MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D or Not 3D? Is that a Question?

2011· article· en· W1504194012 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurator The Museum Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsSteinbach Bible College
FundersUniversity of New South WalesU.S. Department of Education
KeywordsIllusionStereoscopyEntertainmentExhibitionPerceptionInterpretation (philosophy)MultimediaMovie theaterVisual arts3d modelComputer scienceArtPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Stereoscopic 3D images, although going back to the mid-nineteenth century, are becoming pervasive in cinema, the Web, electronic games, television, graphic simulations, personal photography, and the entertainment and education ecologies. The use of stereo 3D goes beyond a technology vogue to the creation of effective experiences that are more naturally engaging for audiences by conveying real physical depth perception and the illusions of tangibility and tactility. This paper claims that because museums are all about compelling, memorable, and visceral experiences, 3D will become an increasingly important tool for exhibitions, education, and interpretation; the challenge will be to know when, how, and why to use it. Stereo 3D is described and a trajectory of examples of past and current museum use is presented. The paper also provides a rationale for why, when many technologies are vying for priority and resources, stereoscopic 3D technology should be near the top of the list.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.175 · 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