MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2621309126 · doi:10.11575/prism/31456

Bridging Private and Shared Interaction Surfaces in Collocated Groupware.

2013· dissertation· en· W2621309126 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBridging (networking)Collaborative softwareHuman–computer interactionComputer scienceWorld Wide WebComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-display environments (such as the pairing of a digital tabletop computer with a set of handheld tablet computers) can support collocated interaction in groups by providing individuals with private workspaces that can be used alongside shared interaction surfaces. However, such a configuration necessitates the inclusion of intuitive and seamless interactions to move digital objects between displays. While existing research has suggested numerous methods to bridge devices in this manner, these methods often require highly specialized equipment and are seldom examined using real-world tasks. This thesis investigates the use of two cross-device object transfer methods as adapted for use with commonly-available hardware and applied for use in a realistic task, a familiar tabletop card game.
\nA digital tabletop and tablet implementation of the tabletop card game Dominion is developed to support each of the two cross-device object transfer methods (as well as two different turn-taking methods to support user identification). An observational user study is then performed to examine the effect of the transfer methods on groups’ behaviour, examining player preferences and the strategies which players applied to pursue their varied goals within the game. The study reveals that players’ choices and use of the methods is shaped greatly by the way in which each player personally defines the Dominion task, not simply by the objectives outlined in its rulebook. Design considerations for the design of cross-device object transfer methods and lessons-learned for system and experimental design as applied to the gaming domain are also offered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · 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