MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517417316 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601470

Measuring Glance Legibility of Wearable Heads-Up Display Interfaces Using an Adaptive Staircase Procedure

2016· article· en· W2517417316 on OpenAlexaff
Anson Ho, Jeffery Sullivan, Eric C. K. Cheng, Shi Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegibilityComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionWearable computerInterface (matter)PopularityTask (project management)Computer graphics (images)EngineeringPsychologyEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Heads-up displays (HUDs) are growing in popularity and utility, providing novel ways to interact with environments and other individuals. HUD interfaces must allow users to quickly view information without distracting them from their primary task. We test the use of an adaptive staircase as a method to investigate the glance legibility of two Google Glass heads-up display interfaces. Glance legibility refers to an interface’s legibility when viewed in short amounts of time (also known as glance-like conditions). We measure glance legibility by the minimum presentation time required to read an interface and respond correctly to a yes-no question. The applications of this research can help inform the design and evaluation of future heads-up display interfaces under glance-like conditions.

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)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207