MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415809773 · doi:10.1145/2901790.2901815

Tap-Kick-Click

2016· article· en· W2415809773 on OpenAlex
William Saunders, Daniel Vogel

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 Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeskDebuggingComputer scienceUsabilityInterface (matter)Foot (prosody)Input deviceCode (set theory)User interfaceHuman–computer interactionComputer graphics (images)VisualizationSimulationComputer visionComputer hardwareArtificial intelligenceOperating systemProgramming languageSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foot interaction techniques for controlling conventional desktop applications at a standing desk are described. Indirect, discrete two-foot input using combinations of spatial kicks, taps, jumps, and standing postures are tracked using a depth camera and instrumented shoes. An implemented system shows how visual feedback and interface augmentation can make foot input compatible with existing desktop applications. Application scenarios using the system demonstrate productive pure foot input breaks with real application tasks like web browsing and code debugging, as well as using feet as a secondary input channel with mouse and keyboard. An evaluation validates the usability of the approach.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207