MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112386462 · doi:10.1145/1179295.1179310

Designing an adaptive multimedia interactive to support shared learning experiences

2006· article· en· W2112386462 on OpenAlexaff
Steve DiPaola, Caitlin Akai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMuseums and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMultimediaContext (archaeology)Human–computer interactionVisitor patternProcess (computing)Interactive mediaPersonalizationNatural (archaeology)World Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the aid of new technologies, integrated design approaches are becoming increasingly incorporated into exhibit design in museums, aquaria and science centres. These settings share many similar design constraints that need to be addressed when designing multimedia interactives as exhibits. The use of adaptive systems and techniques can overcome many of the constraints inherent in these environments as well as enhance the educational content they incorporate. Our main design goal was to facilitate a process to create user centric, collaborative and reflective learning spaces around the smart multimedia interactives. We were interested in encouraging deeper exploration of the content than what is typically possible through wall signage, video display or a supplemental web page. We discuss techniques to bring adaptive systems into public informal learning settings, and validate these techniques in a major aquarium with a beluga simulation interactive. The virtual belugas, in a natural pod context, learn and alter their behavior based on contextual visitor interaction. Data from researchers, aquarium staff and visitors was incorporated into the evolving interactive, which uses physically based systems for natural whale locomotion and water, artificial intelligence systems to simulation natural behavior, all of which respond to user input. The interactive allows visitors to engage in educational "what-if" scenarios of wild beluga emergent behavior using a shared tangible interface controlling a large screen display.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMuseums and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207