MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968063421 · doi:10.5555/1413907.1413911

Evalutation of UML CASE tool with haptics

2008· article· en· W1968063421 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

VenueAmbient Media and Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTeleoperation and Haptic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionUsabilityUnified Modeling LanguageStereotaxyUser interfaceGestureSoftwareSimulationArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haptics technology has received enormous attention to enhance human computer interaction. Indeed haptics offers a natural user interface based on human gesture system. In this paper, we present a prototype haptic-enabled UML CASE tool that allows software engineering developers to intuitively interact and touch the modeling elements of the tool and feel the force feedback. The tool uses the Omni Phantom device, a common single-point of interaction haptic device. We performed a usability study to compare the haptic-based approach against the traditional mouse-based approach. Even though some users expressed the tiresome of using the haptic device, the study demonstrated the potential of incorporating the haptic modality in UML development tools in terms of user involvement, socialism, and motivation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.183 · 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