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

Surface drawing

2001· article· en· W1981963587 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Schkolne, Michael Pruett, Peter Schröder

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.

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)0.003
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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2500.100

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

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

Citations263
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207