MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028055338 · doi:10.1145/1520340.1520481

An evaluation of techniques for selecting moving targets

2009· article· en· W2028055338 on OpenAlexaff
Tyler J. Gunn, Pourang Irani, John Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceCometLock (firearm)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moving targets are found in numerous applications such as computer games, air traffic control systems, and video surveillance. The selection of moving targets is considerably more difficult and error prone than traditional stationary target selection. In this paper, we introduce Comet Tails and Target Lock, two techniques that support the selection of moving targets. Our goal is to facilitate accurate and fast selection of moving targets. We compare our two techniques to unassisted selection in a controlled experiment. The results show that for moving target selection, Comet Tails and Target Lock can outperform unassisted selection, and result in fewer errors. According to post-experiment questionnaires, participants indicate a stronger preference for assisted target selection with Comet Tails and Target Lock than unassisted selection.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207