Understanding the design space of referencing in collaborative augmented reality environments
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
For collaborative environments to be successful, it is critical that participants have the ability to generate effective references. Given the heterogeneity of the objects and the myriad of possible scenarios for collaborative augmented reality environments, generating meaningful references within them can be difficult. Participants in co-located physical spaces benefit from non-verbal communication, such as eye gaze, pointing and body movement; however, when geographically separated, this form of communication must be synthesized using computer-mediated techniques. We have conducted an exploratory study using a collaborative building task of constructing both physical and virtual models to better understand inter-referential awareness -- or the ability for one participant to refer to a set of objects, and for that reference to be understood. Our contributions are not necessarily in presenting novel techniques, but in narrowing the design space for referencing in collaborative augmented reality. This study suggests collaborative reference preferences are heavily dependent on the context of the workspace.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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