MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006292554 · doi:10.1109/mprv.2014.47

Fabricating Bendy: Design and Development of Deformable Prototypes

2014· article· en· W2006292554 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Lo, Audrey Girouard

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Pervasive Computing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceLeverage (statistics)Process (computing)FabricationSet (abstract data type)User interfaceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deformable user interfaces leverage the physical actions we use intuitively to interact with real objects. It is therefore important to consider a prototype's physical characteristics when conducting research on deformable interactions. To create an authentic product experience, the authors set out to build a prototype that would mimic potential commercialized flexible devices and achieve the realism often lacking in low-fidelity prototypes. In this article, they outline the design and fabrication process to create Bendy, a prototype for studying deformable user interfaces. Their method creates prototypes quickly (one day) and inexpensively (approximately US $70) by using readily available materials. In addition, the process lets other researchers customize physical properties and interaction language to fit their specific purposes. The deformable prototype is composed of three main layers: a flexible plastic, an array of bend sensors connected to a flexible circuit, and a layer of silicone that encloses the sensors and circuit. The authors describe the fabrication process and demonstrate their method with two additional case studies. This article is part of a special issue on fabrication and printing. The Web extra shows the fabrication process, from the circuit design to printing and testing our flexible circuit, to creating the final Bendy prototype and playing Pac-Man using our deformable prototype. The web extra for this article can be found at http://youtu.be/PJ5ee5gAbm8.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Pervasive ComputingSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207