Individual Realities: Customizing Aesthetics in Shared Immersive Virtual Environments
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
Immersive virtual reality systems such as CAVEs and head-mounted displays offer a unique shared environment for collaborations unavailable in the real world. Virtual environments not only provide users with novel interaction and navigation approaches but each person is also generally provided a unique perspective into the virtual world. Provided each participant sees the virtual environment from a unique display, we argue that a group consensus about the world's aesthetics is often unimportant, unlike in the real world. Each user is able to see a unique custom rendering of the virtual world and we predict no negative impact on other participants. Designing for individual aesthetic preferences also provides numerous potential benefits to system usability including better user satisfaction, an increased sense of presence, and improved task performance. These advantages are discussed in detail. We conclude with a brief discussion about potential experiments intended to clarify both the differences between shared and individual virtual environment aesthetics and the impact aesthetic appeal has on virtual reality usability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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