A comparison of competitive and cooperative task performance using spherical and flat displays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While large flat vertical displays may facilitate persistent public sharing of work, they may do so at a cost of limited personal display space when everyone can see each other's activity. By contrast, new form factors, such as spherical displays, support sharing display space by limiting the user's view to at most one hemisphere. In this paper, we investigate how different interactive large display form factors can support differences in sharing of information during competitive and cooperative task conditions. We implemented three different large display types: spherical, flat, and a flat display with divider. Results show that task performance of the flat display with divider did not differ significantly from that of the spherical display. Additionally, we implemented and compared three peeking techniques that facilitated sharing of information. Results show participants peeked significantly more in competitive tasks than they did in cooperative tasks. Usage of peeking techniques between the spherical display and the flat display with divider were similar, and distinct from that of the flat display. Not surprisingly, results show that the affordance of easily glancing at a partner's work on the flat display provided a significant advantage in cooperative tasks.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".