MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981963587 · doi:10.1145/365024.365114

Surface drawing

2001· article· en· W1981963587 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 institutionsBell (Canada)
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExhibitionComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPaintingConstruct (python library)Space (punctuation)3d modelInterface (matter)Line drawingsUser interfaceSurface (topology)Computer graphics (images)MultimediaVisual artsEngineering drawingArtArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface Drawing is a system for creating organic 3D shapes in a manner which supports the needs and interests of artists. This medium facilitates the early stages of creative design which many 3D modeling programs neglect. Much like traditional media such as line drawing and painting, Surface Drawing lets users construct shapes through repeated marking. In our case, the hand is used to mark 3D space in a semi-immersive virtual environment. The interface is completed with tangible tools to edit and manipulate models. We introduce the use of tongs to move and scale 3D shapes and demonstrate a magnet tool which is comfortably held without restricting hand motion. We evaluated our system through collaboration with artists and designers, exhibition before hundreds of users, our own extensive exploration of the medium, and an informal user study. Response was especially positive from users with an artistic background.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations263
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207