MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986805683 · doi:10.1145/3359997.3365693

Visualizing and Interacting with Hierarchical Menus in Immersive Augmented Reality

2019· article· en· W2986805683 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
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionModalitiesAugmented realityGestureGraphical user interfacePoint (geometry)User interfaceVisualizationModality (human–computer interaction)MultimediaComputer graphics (images)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) have long been used as a way to inform the user of the large number of available actions and options. GUIs in desktop applications traditionally appear in the form of two-dimensional hierarchical menus due to the limited screen real estate, the spatial restrictions imposed by the hardware e.g. 2D, and the available input modalities e.g. mouse/keyboard point-and-click, touch, dwell-time etc. In immersive Augmented Reality (AR), there are no such restrictions and the available input modalities are different (i.e. hand gestures, head pointing or voice recognition), yet the majority of the applications in AR still use the same type of GUIs as with desktop applications.

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 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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207