MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286501983 · doi:10.1145/2839462.2839484

Snake Charmer

2016· article· en· W2286501983 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno De Araujo, Ricardo Jota, Varun Perumal, Jia Xian Yao, Karan Singh, Daniel Wigdor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)StereoscopyVirtual realityObject (grammar)Haptic technologyGRASPHuman–computer interactionAugmented realityArtificial intelligenceComputer visionRobotic arm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Augmented and virtual reality have the potential of being indistinguishable from the real world. Holographic displays, including head mounted units, support this vision by creating rich stereoscopic scenes, with objects that appear to float in thin air - often within arm's reach. However, one has but to reach out and grasp nothing but air to destroy the suspension of disbelief. Snake-charmer is an attempt to provide physical form to virtual objects by revisiting the concept of Robotic Graphics or Encountered-type Haptic interfaces with current commodity hardware. By means of a robotic arm, Snake-charmer brings physicality to a virtual scene and explores what it means to truly interact with an object. We go beyond texture and position simulation and explore what it means to have a physical presence inside a virtual scene. We demonstrate how to render surface characteristics beyond texture and position, including temperature; how to physically move objects; and how objects can physically interact with the user's hand. We analyze our implementation, present the performance characteristics, and provide guidance for the construction of future physical renderers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.010

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations168
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207