MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051169193 · doi:10.1002/cav.174

Automatic design and layout of 3D user interfaces

2007· article· en· W2051169193 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Green, Wai Leng Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Animation and Virtual Worlds · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUser interfaceInterface (matter)Process (computing)Set (abstract data type)ProgrammerHuman–computer interactionSoftwareUser interface designGraphical user interfaceNatural user interfaceRange (aeronautics)Operating systemProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The production of 3D user interfaces is complicated by the wide range of input and output devices used in 3D applications and the lack of software tools for their production. A 3D user interface that works well with one particular set of input and output devices could fail when another set of devices is used. To solve this problem the Grappl system automatically generates 3D user interfaces at run time. This paper presents the programmer interface to Grappl and some of the techniques used in its implementation. An important part of this process is placing user interface and application objects in 3D space. This is achieved by using policy techniques to automate the layout process. This paper presents some of the features and techniques that have been used in policy implementation, including relative position policy and grouping policy, with a few example applications. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Animation and Virtual WorldsSame topicComputer Graphics and Visualization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207