MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Virtual Reality Technologies (Visual, Haptics, and Audio) in Large Datasets Analysis

2013· book-chapter· en· W2483307344 on OpenAlex
Bob-Antoine J. Ménélas

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

VenueAdvances in data mining and database management book series · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaptic technologyComputer scienceVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionModalitiesData scienceMultimediaArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the latest developments in technology, several researchers have integrated other sensorymotor channels in the analysis of scientific datasets. In addition to vision, auditory feedbacks and haptic interactions have been exploited. In this chapter we study how these modalities can contribute to effective analysis processes. Based on psychophysical characteristics of humans the author argues that haptics should be used in order to improve interactions of the user with the dataset to analyze. The author describes a classification that highlights four tasks for which haptics seems to present advantages over vision and audio. Proposed taxonomy is divided into four categories: Select, Locate, Connect and Arrange. Moreover, this work provides a complete view on the contribution of haptics in analysis of scientific datasets.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.006
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.278 · 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