MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571300798 · doi:10.1109/vr.2017.7892332

Exploring non-reversing magic mirrors for screen-based augmented reality systems

2017· article· en· W2571300798 on OpenAlex

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReversingAugmented realityComputer scienceMAGIC (telescope)MetaphorComputer graphics (images)VisualizationMirror imagePerceptionComputer graphicsHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceOpticsPhysicsPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Screen-based Augmented Reality (AR) systems can be built as a window into the real world as often done in mobile AR applications or using the Magic Mirror metaphor, where users can see themselves with augmented graphics on a large display. The term Magic Mirror implies that the display shows the users enantiomorph, i.e. the mirror image, such that the system mimics a real-world physical mirror. However, the question arises whether one should design a traditional mirror, or instead display the true mirror image by means of a non-reversing mirror? We discuss the perceptual differences between these two mirror visualization concepts and present a first comparative study in the context of Magic Mirror anatomy teaching.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.017 · 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

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207