MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045450224 · doi:10.1145/2470654.2481290

Listen to it yourself!

2013· article· en· W2045450224 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Panëels, Adriana Olmos, Jeffrey R. Blum, Jeremy R. Cooperstock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRendering (computer graphics)UsabilitySoftware deploymentGlobal Positioning SystemHuman–computer interactionMultimediaMobile deviceWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although multiple GPS-based navigation applications exist for the visually impaired, these are typically poorly suited for in-situ exploration, require cumbersome hardware, lack support for widely accessible geographic databases, or do not take advantage of advanced functionality such as spatialized audio rendering. These shortcomings led to our development of a novel spatial awareness application that leverages the capabilities of a smartphone coupled with worldwide geographic databases and spatialized audio rendering to convey surrounding points of interest. This paper describes the usability evaluation of our system through a task-based study and a longer-term deployment, each conducted with six blind users in real settings. The findings highlight the importance of testing in ecologically valid contexts over sufficient periods to face real-world challenges, including balancing quality versus quantity for audio information, overcoming limitations imposed by sensor accuracy and quality of database information, and paying appropriate design attention to physical interaction with the device.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1090.100

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207