MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132892688 · doi:10.1109/icme.2011.6012223

HKiss: Real world based haptic interaction with virtual 3D avatars

2011· article· en· W2132892688 on OpenAlexaff
A. Rahman, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)AvatarLeverage (statistics)KISS (TNC)Virtual machineHuman–computer interactionVirtual worldBluetoothMetaverseVirtual realityMultimediaSimulationArtificial intelligenceComputer networkOperating systemWireless

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many researchers around the world are aiming to leverage the sense of touch in the communication medium between multiuser 3D virtual world and real environment. In this paper we propose a system that brings 3D avatar centric virtual interpersonal communication events as a form of haptic stimulation to the real world users. In order to render the haptic stimulations, we considered a neck piece (tactile haptic device) that the real users can wear in a scarf-like suit. Further, we enhanced the Linden Lab's multiuser online 3D virtual world, Second Life in order to facilitate the haptic communications. In our model when one of the virtual avatars kisses the other in Second Life, an event is triggered. The event is decoded by our system to send haptic based kiss to the real user via the Bluetooth-enabled neck piece hardware. Some of the potential applications of the proposed approach includes distant lover's communication, remote child caring, and stress recovery.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207