MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157217758

Separability of spatial manipulations in multi-touch interfaces

2009· article· en· W2157217758 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestureComputer scienceObject (grammar)Matching (statistics)Computer visionInteraction techniqueRotation (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionScale (ratio)Multi-touchMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-touch interfaces allow users to translate, rotate, and scale digital objects in a single interaction. However, this freedom represents a problem when users intend to perform only a subset of manipulations. A user trying to scale an object in a print layout program, for example, might find that the object was also slightly translated and rotated, interfering with what was already carefully laid out earlier. We implemented and tested interaction techniques that allow users to select a subset of manipulations. Magnitude Filtering eliminates transformations (e.g., rotation) that are small in magnitude. Gesture Matching attempts to classify the user’s input into a subset of manipulation gestures. Handles adopts a conventional single-touch handles approach for touch input. Our empirical study showed that these techniques significantly reduce errors in

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207