An Elicitation Study on Gesture Attitudes and Preferences Towards an Interactive Hand-Gesture Vocabulary
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
With the introduction of new depth sensing technologies, interactive hand-gesture devices are rapidly emerging. However, the hand-gestures used in these devices do not follow a common vocabulary, making certain control command device-specific. In this paper we present an initial effort to create a standardized interactive hand-gesture vocabulary for the next generation of television applications. We conduct a user-elicitation study using a survey in order to define a common vocabulary for specific control commands, such as Volume up/down, Menu open/close, etc. This survey is entirely user-oriented and thus it has two phases. In the first phase, we ask open questions about specific commands. In the second phase, we use the answers suggested from the first phase to create a multiple choice questionnaire. Based on the results from the survey, we study the gesture attitudes and preferences between gender groups, and between age groups with a quantitative and qualitative statistical analysis. Finally, the hand-gesture vocabulary is derived after applying an agreement analysis on the user-elicited gestures. The proposed methodology for gesture set design is comparable with existing methodologies and yields higher agreement levels than relevant user-elicited studies in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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