VibViz: Organizing, visualizing and navigating vibration libraries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With haptics now common in consumer devices, diversity in tactile perception and aesthetic preferences confound haptic designers. End-user customization out of example sets is an obvious solution, but haptic collections are notoriously difficult to explore. This work addresses the provision of easy and highly navigable access to large, diverse sets of vibrotactile stimuli, on the premise that multiple access pathways facilitate discovery and engagement. We propose and examine five disparate organization schemes (taxonomies), describe how we created a 120-item library with diverse functional and affective characteristics, and present VibViz, an interactive tool for end-user library navigation and our own investigation of how different taxonomies can assist navigation. An exploratory user study with and of VibViz suggests that most users gravitate towards an organization based on sensory and emotional terms, but also exposes rich variations in their navigation patterns and insights into the basis of effective haptic library navigation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it