MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087757288 · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101394

Touching holograms with windows mixed reality: Renovating the consumer retailing services

2020· article· en· W3087757288 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology in Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMixed realityContext (archaeology)PerceptionAugmented realityWearable computerWearable technologyService (business)MarketingBusinessComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent technological advances in wearable technologies, such as mixed-reality devices, have enabled consumers to interact with artificial three-dimensional visual environments. This presents an incredible opportunity for service retailers to present alternative ways of interacting with their services. This study empirically investigates the potential applications of Windows Mixed Reality devices, while specifically examining various forms of consumer perceptions and behavioural intentions. This research is among the first to empirically examine the effect of windows mixed reality experiences, enabled by the latest wearable devices, on intentions of users in a services retailing context. The results of this study help guide retailers who are looking to integrate Windows Mixed Reality devices in their practice to increase user satisfaction, trust, and utilitarian needs. The paper recommends specific theoretical and managerial implications.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.233 · 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