MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120690363 · doi:10.1109/cgi.1997.601268

Integrating flying and fish tank metaphors with cyclopean scale

2002· article· en· W2120690363 on OpenAlexaff
Colin Ware, Daniel Fleet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>Scale (ratio)Computer scienceMarine engineeringFisheryEnvironmental scienceEngineeringGeographyCartographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In fish tank VR environments, the screen is used as a window into a virtual environment. This effectively creates a useful 3D workspace in the vicinity of the monitor screen, near to the user. However, many geographical applications require the user to cover large virtual distances and to support this a flying interface is often provided. The authors describe a method for combining the flying and fish tank metaphors to create a practical working environment. The central insight developed in the paper is that a geometric transformation that they call the "cyclopean scale" enables the simple combination of flying and fish tank VR interaction metaphors. Cyclopean scale continuously scales the working environment to lie just behind the screen in terms of stereoscopic depth. Cyclopean scale allows for fish tank VR viewing and also places objects at a convenient distance for manipulation, optimizes stereo display parameters and reduces stereo display problems (vergence focus conflict). They have implemented this technique in a system called Fledermaus VR with a cable route editing task. This is an application for planning the layout of submarine cables.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207