MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119714469

A low-cost test environment for usability studies of head-mounted virtual reality systems

2008· article· en· W2119714469 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

VenueJournal of Usability Studies archive · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPluralistic walkthroughUsability engineeringUsability labVirtual realityTest (biology)Cognitive walkthroughOptical head-mounted displayHeuristic evaluationVirtual machineArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a need to develop new usability testing environments and methodologies for unconventional interactive systems. Pursuant to that need, we developed a low-cost test environment for a Head-Mounted Display (HMD)-based, virtual reality system called Osmose. Osmose was difficult to test for many reasons, one of which was its style of interaction. We began setting up the testing environment about two weeks before the start of the usability testing. We learned many lessons throughout the experience. This paper summarizes the study findings, both methodological -- how to setup and conduct a usability lab for such an environment -- as well as conceptual --the human experiences and behavioral patterns involved in using an immersive 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.288 · 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