MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039172409 · doi:10.4018/ijacdt.2020010101

Effectiveness of Practicing Social Distancing in Museums and Art Galleries for Visitors Using Mobile Augmented Reality (MAR)

2020· article· en· W3039172409 on OpenAlexaff
Ajinkya Kunjir, Krutika Ravindra Patil

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Art Culture Design and Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial distanceAugmented realityDistancingConstructivePandemicEntertainmentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyInternet privacyVisual artsMultimediaArtComputer scienceMedicineHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the tragic Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic was declared by the WHO (World Health Organization) in March 2020, social distancing and sanitization were recommended by top medical experts and health officials to help stop the virus spread. Research has sought to help people practice social distancing in public attractions such as museums and art galleries using touchless technologies. In the modern circle of innovation and technology, mobile augmented reality (MAR) is a touchless technology that adds layers of virtual information on top of real-world images. An individual can view 3D images and videos by pointing an AR-enabled device towards a piece of digital information. This paper describes the constructive use of the major design elements of MAR, which can directly be applied for impaired and non-impaired visitors to practice social distancing in museums and art galleries.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Art Culture Design and TechnologySame topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207