Augmented-Reality-Based Indoor Navigation: A Comparative Analysis of Handheld Devices Versus Google Glass
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
Navigation systems have been widely used in outdoor environments, but indoor navigation systems are still in early development stages. In this paper, we introduced an augmented-reality-based indoor navigation application to assist people navigate in indoor environments. The application can be implemented on electronic devices such as a smartphone or a head-mounted device. In particular, we examined Google Glass as a wearable head-mounted device in comparison with handheld navigation aids including a smartphone and a paper map. We conducted both a technical assessment study and a human factors study. The technical assessment established the feasibility and reliability of the system. The human factors study evaluated human-machine system performance measures including perceived accuracy, navigation time, subjective comfort, subjective workload, and route memory retention. The results showed that the wearable device was perceived to be more accurate, but other performance and workload results indicated that the wearable device was not significantly different from the handheld smartphone. We also found that both digital navigation aids were better than the paper map in terms of shorter navigation time and lower workload, but digital navigation aids resulted in worse route retention. These results could provide empirical evidence supporting future designs of indoor navigation systems. Implications and future research were also discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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