Simply Spinning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe design considerations in Serpentine Dance, Refocused (SDR), an interactive movement installation that pays homage to Loïe Fuller's mesmerizing creations of light and motion. Our design goals were inspired by kinesthetic empathy research. Fuller created the Serpentine Dance (1891) at a time when many artists turned to abstraction as a way for audiences to engage with the essence of motion rather than narrative plots. We sought to heighten the feeling of kinesthetic empathy through creating an interactive environment where audience members could physically engage and reflect on the sensation of spinning, a prominent action in the Serpentine Dance. Through our analysis of SDR we found that our design intentions relating to kinesthetic empathy were not addressed by current design frameworks for kinesthetic interactions. Based on kinesthetic empathy research, we restructure and extend these frameworks into an evaluative and generative framework for interactive systems. We propose that kinesthetic empathy is the center of all movement interactions. This broader definition of kinesthetic empathy can be used to evaluate and generate a wide variety of movement interactions. We discuss the design of SDR through the lens of our evaluative framework.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".