Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant amount of research on digital tables has traditionally investigated the use of hands and fingers to control 2D and 3D artifacts, has even investigated people's expectations when interacting with these devices. However, people often use their hands and body to communicate and express ideas to others. In this work, we explore narrative gestures on a digital table for the purpose of telling stories. We present the results of an observational study of people illustrating stories on a digital table with virtual figurines, and in both a physical sandbox and water with physical figurines. Our results show that the narrative gestures people use to tell stories with objects are highly varied and, in some cases, fundamentally different from the gestures designers and researchers have suggested for controlling digital con-tent. In contrast to smooth, predetermined drags for movement and rotation, people use jiggling, repeated lifting, and bimanual actions to express rich, simultaneous, and independent actions by multiple characters in a story. Based on these results, we suggest that future storytelling designs consider the importance of touch actions for narra-tion, in-place manipulations, the (possibly non-linear) path of a drag, allowing expression through manipulations, and two-handed simultaneous manipulation of multiple objects.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".