MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998898665 · doi:10.1145/2207676.2207733

CrossingGuard

2012· article· en· W1998898665 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Guy, Khai N. Truong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntersection (aeronautics)Visually impairedHuman–computer interactionFocus (optics)Task (project management)Orientation and MobilityGlobal Positioning SystemOrientation (vector space)Artificial intelligenceComputer visionTransport engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visually impaired pedestrians experience unique challenges when navigating an urban environment because many cues about orientation and traffic patterns are difficult to ascertain without the use of vision. Technological aids such as customized GPS navigation tools offer the chance to augment visually impaired pedestrians' sensory information with a richer depiction of an environment, but care must be taken to balance the need for more information with other demands on the senses. In this paper, we focus on the information needs of visually impaired pedestrians at intersections, which present a specific cause of stress when navigating in unfamiliar locations. We present a navigation application prototype called CrossingGuard that provides rich information to a user such as details about intersection geometry that are not available to visually impaired pedestrians today. A user study comparing content-rich information to a baseline condition shows that content-rich information raises the level of comfort that visually impaired pedestrians feel at unfamiliar intersections. In addition, we discuss the categories of information that are most useful. Finally, we introduce a micro-task approach to gather intersection data via Street View annotations that achieves 85.5% accuracy over the 9 categories of information used by CrossingGuard.

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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1130.042

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207