MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993057789 · doi:10.1145/1240866.1241014

Comparing visualizations for tracking off-screen moving targets

2007· article· en· W1993057789 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
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationWorkspaceViewportComputer visionTracking (education)Artificial intelligenceTrack (disk drive)BitTorrent trackerRepresentation (politics)Computer graphics (images)Tracking systemEye trackingRobotKalman filter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In games, aircraft navigation systems and in control systems, users have to track moving targets around a large workspace that may extend beyond the users. viewport. This paper presents on-going work that investigates the effectiveness of two different off-screen visualization techniques for accurately tracking off-screen moving targets. We compare the most common off-screen representation, Halo, with a new fisheye-based visualization technique called EdgeRadar. Our initial results show that users can track off-screen moving objects more accurately with EdgeRadar over Halos. This work presents a preliminary but promising step toward the design of visualization techniques for tracking off-screen moving targets.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations63
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207