Awareness beyond the desktop: exploring attention and distraction with a projected peripheral-vision display
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The initiation of interaction in face-to-face settings is often a gradual negotiation process that takes place in a rich context of awareness and social signals. This gradual approach to interaction is missing from most online messaging systems, however, and users often have no idea when others are paying attention to them or when they are about to be interrupted. One reason for this limitation is that few systems have considered the role of peripheral perception in attracting and directing interpersonal attention in face-to-face interaction. We believed that a display exploiting people's peripheral vision could capitalize on natural human attention-management behavior. To test the value of this technique, we compared a peripheral-vision awareness display with an on-screen IM-style system. We expected that people would notice more information from the larger peripheral display, which they did. Moreover, they did so while attending less often to the peripheral display. Our study suggests that peripheral-vision awareness displays may be able to improve attention and awareness management for distributed groups.
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 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 it