MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953011543 · doi:10.1145/3322276.3323701

The Tilting Bowl: Electronic Design for a Research Product

2019· article· en· W2953011543 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsElectronicsProduct (mathematics)Task (project management)Perspective (graphical)Product designComputer scienceTilt (camera)Task managementKey (lock)EngineeringSystems engineeringHuman–computer interactionElectrical engineeringComputer securityMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tilting Bowl is a ceramic bowl that unpredictably but gently tilts multiple times daily. This pictorial reports on the crafting of the electronics of the Tilting Bowl within the concept of a research product [10]. From this perspective, the seemingly simple task of making a bowl tilt holds unique challenges and demands - especially as a research product that is deployed in everyday settings for lengthy periods of time. We highlight electronic design challenges that came up in three processes of making the Tilting Bowl: the tilting mechanism, hardware integration of electronics and power management. Lastly, we offer three suggestions for designing electronics for research products.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207