MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158019650 · doi:10.1109/haptics.2006.171

Perceptual Analysis of Haptic Icons: an Investigation into the Validity of Cluster Sorted MDS

2006· article· en· W2158019650 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Pasquero, J. Luk, S. Little, Karon E. MacLean

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUSableMultidimensional scalingPerceptionData collectionSet (abstract data type)Perceptual mappingHaptic technologyData setKey (lock)SortingCard sortingData scienceArtificial intelligenceData miningHuman–computer interactionMachine learningMultimediaEngineeringPsychologyAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of usable haptic icons (brief informational signals delivered through the sense of touch) requires a tool for measuring perceptual distances between icons that will be used together as a set. Our experiences with one potentially powerful approach, Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) analysis of perceptual data acquired using an efficient cluster sorting technique, raised questions relating to the methodology for data collection. In this paper, we review key issues relating to perceptual data collection method, describe an example data set and present its initial MDS analysis, and then examine the impact of collection method on MDS outcome through a secondary analysis of the data and the inherent structure of the algorithm components. Our analysis suggests that an understanding of these issues is important for the method’s effective use, but has not exposed any major flaws with the process.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207