MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1594071114 · doi:10.1109/searis.2014.7152796

On the art of the evaluation and presentation of RIS-engineering

2014· article· en· W1594071114 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Erich Latoschik, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresentation (obstetrics)Computer scienceAugmented realityField (mathematics)Work (physics)Virtual realityHuman–computer interactionEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses the tasks of presenting and evaluating relevant scientific research in the field of Real-time Interactive Systems (RIS), i.e., in areas such as Virtual, Mixed, and Augmented Reality (VR, MR, and AR) and advanced Human-Computer Interaction. It identifies different methods for a structured approach to the description and evaluation of systems and their properties, including commonly found best practices as well as dos and don'ts. The article is targeted at authors as well as reviewers to guide both groups in the presentation as well as the appraisal of system engineering work.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207