MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787843929 · doi:10.1109/crv.2017.16

A Window to Your Smartphone: Exploring Interaction and Communication in Immersive VR with Augmented Virtuality

2017· article· en· W2787843929 on OpenAlexafffund
Amit P. Desai, Lourdes Peña‐Castillo, Oscar Meruvia-Pastor

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeadsetComputer scienceVirtual realityAugmented realityOptical head-mounted displayHuman–computer interactionImmersion (mathematics)Virtual worldComputer-mediated realityWindow (computing)Sense of presenceIsolation (microbiology)Mobile deviceMultimediaMixed realityComputer graphics (images)Computer visionWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major drawback of most Head Mounted Displays (HMDs) used in immersive Virtual Reality (VR) is the visual and social isolation of users from their real-world surroundings while wearing these headsets. This partial isolation of users from the real-world might hinder social interactions with friends and family. To address this issue, we present a new method to allow people wearing VR HMDs to use their smartphones or tablets without removing their HMDs. To do this, we augment the scene inside the VR HMD with a view of the user's device so that the user can interact with the device without removing the headset. The idea involves the use of additional cameras, such as the Leap Motion device or a high-resolution RGB camera to capture the user's real-world surrounding and augment the virtual world with the content displayed on the smartphone screen. This setup allows VR users to have a window to their smartphone from within the virtual world and afford all of the functionality provided by their smartphones, with the potential to reduce some of the undesirable isolation users may experience when using immersive VR systems.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

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 communication0.0000.002
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVirtual Reality Applications and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207