Replicate and Reuse: Tangible Interaction Design for Digitally-Augmented Physical Media Objects
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Technology has transformed our physical interactions into infinitely more scalable and flexible digital ones. We can peruse an infinite number of photos, news articles, and books. However, these digital experiences lack the physical experience of paging through an album, reading a newspaper, or meandering through a bookshelf. Overlaying physical objects with digital content using augmented reality is a promising avenue towards bridging this gap. In this paper, we investigate the interaction design for such digital-overlaid physical objects and their varying levels of tangibility. We first conduct a user evaluation of a physical photo album that uses tangible interactions to support physical and digital operations. We further prototype multiple objects including bookshelves and newspapers and probe users on their usage, capabilities, and interactions. We then conduct a qualitative investigation of three interaction designs with varying tangibility that use three different input modalities. Finally, we discuss the insights from our investigations and recommend design guidelines.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it