Bibliographic record
Abstract
to create an integrated space. We consider an MR configuration in which collocated collaborators work around a tabletop display, while remote collaborators wear an HMD to interact with a connected virtual environment that gives a 3D perspective, and consider the impact of varying degrees of view congruence with their collaborators. In a within-subjects study with 18 groups of 3, groups completed task scenarios involving 3D object manipulation around a physical-virtual mapped tabletop. We compare a synchronized Tabletop display baseline and two MR conditions with different levels of view congruence: Fishtank and Hover. Fishtank has a high degree of congruence as it shares a top-down perspective of the 3D objects with the tabletop collaborators. The Hover condition has less view congruence since 3D content hovers front of the remote collaborator above the table. The MR conditions yielded higher self-reported awareness and co-presence than the Tabletop condition for both collocated and remote participants. Remote collaborators significantly preferred the MR conditions for manipulating shared 3D models and communicating with their collaborators. Our findings illustrate strengths and weaknesses of both MR techniques but show that more participants preferred the less-congruent Hover condition overall. Reasons include that it facilitated interaction and viewing 3D objects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".