Presentation tools for high-resolution and multiple displays
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presentation software was originally developed as a way to design overhead transparencies to be used as visual aids in talks. While much of the software has since then changed, the basic design using the slide metaphor still follows the original purpose and does not accommodate the different needs and uses presentation software has today. We describe our experiences and design process in developing MultiPresenter -- a presentation system that works on multiple displays designed to promote audiences' learning. Our human-centered approach includes observing instructors use of traditional visual aids such as whiteboards and blackboards as well as newer aids such as computer-generated slide presentations, interviews with instructors during the requirement gathering phase, and multiple iterations of design and testing during the implementation phase. We describe our current and future plans for evaluating and extending our system. Evaluations focus on the deployment of MultiPresenter in actual classrooms to gain valuable feedback from both instructors and students on our design decisions and on the effects that our system has on learning.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it