MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2486882897 · doi:10.1145/2930674.2955211

The Story of Things

2016· article· en· W2486882897 on OpenAlexaff
Alissa N. Antle, Brendan Matkin, Jill Warren

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)TRACE (psycholinguistics)Internet of ThingsAction (physics)Computer scienceInternet privacyHuman–computer interactionAugmented realityThe InternetMultimediaWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Story of Things (SoT) system enables children to learn the story behind every object they touch in a typical day. Inspired by Living Media and the Internet of Things (IoT) our goal is to change children's awareness through hands-on interaction with the world they live in. A back-of-the-hand display is activated by stick-on finger sensors when a child touches an object. They can tap the display to select from a number of stories stored in a crowd sourced database about that object: the materials it was made from; the processes used to make it; how it impacts their body; how it will be disposed of; environmental or social rights challenges associated with the object; and how they can take positive action. This information is overlaid on the world through an augmented-reality contact lens. SoT will also enable children to see a trace of each day and in doing so help them better understand their environmental footprint and how their actions and choices can change the world for the better or worse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0560.017

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207