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
Extending the tabletop to the third dimension has the potential to improve the quality of applications involving 3D data and tasks. Recognizing this, a number of researchers have proposed a myriad of display and input metaphors. However a standardized and cohesive approach has yet to evolve. Furthermore, the majority of these applications and the related research results are scattered across various research areas and communities, and lack a common framework. In this paper, we survey previous 3D tabletops systems, and classify this work within a newly defined taxonomy. We then discuss the design guidelines which should be applied to the various areas of the taxonomy. Our contribution is the synthesis of numerous research results into a cohesive framework, and the discussion of interaction issues and design guidelines which apply. Furthermore, our work provides a clear understanding of what approaches have been taken, and exposes new routes for potential research, within the realm of interactive 3D tabletops.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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