MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150821050 · doi:10.1177/1354856513514333

Working towards defining an aesthetics of augmented reality

2014· article· en· W2150821050 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

VenueConvergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAestheticsAugmented realityWork (physics)Transition (genetics)SociologyEveryday AestheticsArtEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present is a critical time in augmented reality's (AR) definition, as a new medium with aesthetics and conventions just beginning to emerge. We are at a moment when we can look both to the future and to the past: still seeing the previous forms that are shaping AR as a medium while paving new paths, contributing to novel styles and tropes. This article will work toward defining an aesthetics of AR as a new medium in transition, discussing my work as both an artist and a researcher in AR.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0080.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.276 · 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