Big Gestures?: Factors that Influence Gesture Visibility
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
In many scenarios that involve digital systems, it is beneficial to maintain awareness of other people’s actions. During face-to-face communication with fellow humans, this is accomplished by ges-tures. The recent interest in gestural interfaces offers the possibil-ity to transfer this paradigm to human-computer interaction. Pre-viously, researchers exclusively discussed gesture size as a con-tributing factor for awareness maintenance through gestures. However, this might be only one piece of the picture, as other factors might be equally important. We studied small (tablet-sized), medium (monitor-sized), and large (full-arm) gestures. Our study showed that, although size does have significant effects, there are other factors that influence awareness maintenance. Our results provide empirical guidance about the ways that gesture size affects awareness, show that other factors, such as gesture morphology, influence awareness, and suggest that gestural inter-action has potential for improving group awareness in co-located environments.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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