Hands, hover, and nibs: understanding stylus accuracy on tablets
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although tablets and styli have become pervasive, styli have not seen widespread adoption for precise input tasks such as annotation, note-taking, algebra, and so on. While many have identified that stylus accuracy is a problem, there is still much unknown about how the user and the stylus itself influences accuracy. The present work identifies a multitude of factors relating to the user, the stylus, and tablet hardware that impact the inaccuracy experienced today. Further, we report on a two-part user study that evaluated the interplay between the motor and visual systems (i.e., hand posture and visual feedback) and an increasingly important feature of the stylus, the nib diameter. The results determined that the presence of visual feedback and the dimensions of the stylus nib are crucial to the accuracy attained and pressure exerted with the stylus. The ability to rest one's hand on the screen, while providing comfort and support, was found to have surprisingly little influence on accuracy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it