MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795434834 · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173943

Dream Lens

2018· article· en· W2795434834 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
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilityHuman–computer interactionTask (project management)Generative DesignSet (abstract data type)Lens (geology)Generative grammarDreamEngineering drawingArtificial intelligenceSystems engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents Dream Lens, an interactive visual analysis tool for exploring and visualizing large-scale generative design datasets. Unlike traditional computer aided design, where users create a single model, with generative design, users specify high-level goals and constraints, and the system automatically generates hundreds or thousands of candidates all meeting the design criteria. Once a large collection of design variations is created, the designer is left with the task of finding the design, or set of designs, which best meets their requirements. This is a complicated task which could require analyzing the structural characteristics and visual aesthetics of the designs. Two studies are conducted which demonstrate the usability and usefulness of the Dream Lens system, and a generatively designed dataset of 16,800 designs for a sample design problem is described and publicly released to encourage advancement in this area.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations143
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207