MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061056092 · doi:10.1145/377272.377286

Collaborative virtual environments - what next?

2000· article· en· W2061056092 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGGROUP Bulletin · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPleaCollaborative virtual environmentComputer scienceConstruct (python library)Work (physics)Point (geometry)Collaborative softwareHuman–computer interactionData scienceKnowledge managementVirtual realityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As work becomes increasingly geographically dispersed over time zones and cultures, new types of environments are needed that make collaboration in these conditions more productive and more enjoyable. In this contribution, we list some of the issues that we have tentatively identified and that we used to conclude that Collaborative Virtual Environments are ideally suited for this purpose. We then very briefly describe a working CVE framework that we have developed to address the issues that we have raised. The main point of the paper is an admission of the ad hoc nature of our work and a plea for the development of solid understanding of collaborative work in the area of software development that could be used to construct a realistically grounded collaborative environment.

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 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 categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.069

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.258 · 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