MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143482469 · doi:10.1145/1342250.1342252

Safe 3D navigation

2008· article· en· W2143482469 on OpenAlexaff
George Fitzmaurice, Justin Matejka, Igor Mordatch, Azam Khan, Gordon Kurtenbach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilityZoomHuman–computer interactionModalCADMultimediaArtificial intelligenceEngineering drawingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical commercial 3D CAD tools provide modal tools such as pan, zoom, orbit, look, etc. to facilitate freeform navigation in a 3D scene. Mastering these navigation tools requires a significant amount of learning and even experienced computer users can find learning confusing and error-prone. To address this we have developed a concept called "Safe 3D Navigation" where we augment these modal tools with properties to reduce the occurance of confusing situations and improve the learning experience. In this paper we describe the major properties needed for safe navigation, the features we implemented to realize these properties, and usability tests on the effectiveness of these features. We conclude that indeed these properties do improve the learning experience for users that are new to 3D. Furthermore, many of the features we implemented for safe navigation are also very popular with experienced 3D users. As a result, these features have been integrated into six commercial 3D CAD applications and we recommend other application developers include these features to improve 3D navigation.

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)0.004
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations69
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207