MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964053818 · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055023

The vacuum

2005· article· en· W1964053818 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePoint (geometry)Path (computing)Arc (geometry)Vacuum arcMechanical engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringGeometryOperating systemMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the design and evaluation of the vacuum, a new interaction technique that enables quick access to items on areas of a large display that are difficult for a user to reach without significant physical movement. The vacuum is a circular widget with a user controllable arc of influence that is centered at the widget's point of invocation and spans out to the edges of the display. Far away objects residing inside this influence arc are brought closer to the widget's centre in the form of proxies that can be manipulated in lieu of the original. We conducted two experiments which compare the vacuum to direct picking and an existing technique called drag-and-pick [2]. Results show that the vacuum outperforms existing techniques when selecting multiple targets in a sequence, performs similarly to existing techniques when selecting single targets located moderately far away, and slightly worse with single targets located very far away in the presence of distracter targets along the path.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Quick stats

Citations116
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207