MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978334997 · doi:10.1145/2669485.2669520

ePlan Multi-Surface

2014· article· en· W1978334997 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Apoorve Chokshi, Teddy Seyed, Francisco Marinho Rodrigues, Frank Maurer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEmergency responseInformation exchangeContext (archaeology)Emergency managementComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Disaster responseEmergency planningProcess (computing)Human–computer interactionKnowledge managementTelecommunicationsMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emergency response planning is a process that involves many different stakeholders who may communicate concurrently with different channels and exchange different information artefacts. The planning typically occurs in an emergency operations centre (EOC) and involves personnel both in the room and also in the field. The EOC provides an interesting context for examining the use of tablets, tabletops and high resolution wall displays, and their role in facilitating information and communication exchange in an emergency response planning scenario. In collaboration with a military and emergency response simulation software company in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, we developed ePlan Multi-Surface, a multi-surface environment for communication and collaboration for emergency response planning exercises. In this paper, we describe the domain, how it informed our prototype, and insights on collaboration, interactions and information dissemination in multi-surface environments for EOCs.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1780.030

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations36
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207