MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153911851 · doi:10.1109/infcom.2011.5935258

GestureFlow: Streaming gestures to an audience

2011· article· en· W2153911851 on OpenAlexaff
Yuan Feng, Zimu Liu, Baochun Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCooperative Communication and Network Coding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestureComputer scienceMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-touch mobile devices (e.g. iPhone and iPad) and motion-sensing game controllers (e.g. Kinect for Xbox 360) share one common feature: users interact with computing devices in non-conventional gesture-intensive ways, be they multi-touch gestures on the iPad or body motion gestures with the Kinect. As a new way to interact with computing devices, gestures have been proven to be intuitive and natural, with very minimal learning curve. They can be used in applications beyond games, such as those that allow the creation of artistic and musical content in a collaborative fashion. In order for multiple users to collaborate or compete in real time, however, such gestures need to be streamed in multiple broadcast sessions with an “all-to-all” broadcast nature, with each session corresponding to one of users as a source of a gesture stream. These streams of gestures typically incur low yet bursty bit rates, but have unique requirements with respect to delay and loss. In this paper, we present the design of GestureFlow, a gesture broadcast protocol designed specifically for concurrent gesture streams in multiple broadcast sessions. We motivate the effectiveness and practicality of using inter-session network coding, and address challenges introduced by linear dependence, discovered in our extensive experiments involving a new gesture-intensive iPad application that we developed from scratch.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCooperative Communication and Network CodingFrench-language works237,207