MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2397117123 · doi:10.1590/2237-266058902

Comparing Stage Presence and Virtual Reality Presence

2016· article· en· W2397117123 on OpenAlexaff
Sebastian Samur

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Estudos da Presença · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityLiteral (mathematical logic)Stage (stratigraphy)Computer scienceHuman–computer interactionPower (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Reflecting on the impending release of new Head Mounted Display virtual reality (VR) technologies, the article examines definitions and techniques for digital presence, and compares them with research into stage presence. It opens with an outline of definitions of digital presence, comparing them with Cormac Power's fictional, auratic, and literal modes of presence in performance. The article then looks at techniques used in VR and on stage to achieve presence. Finally, performance examples that use virtual reality technologies are presented. The article concludes that even if the technology falls short, discourse on digital presence is useful in providing insights into presence on stage.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Estudos da PresençaSame topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207