MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3098600957 · doi:10.1145/3418413

Necessary and Unnecessary Distractor Avoidance Movements Affect User Behaviors in Crossing Operations

2020· article· en· W3098600957 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

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObstacleComputer scienceObject (grammar)Path (computing)Affect (linguistics)Obstacle avoidanceFitts's lawComputer visionMotion (physics)TrajectoryArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychologySimulationTask (project management)CommunicationEngineeringLawRobotMobile robot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “crossing time” to pass between objects in lassoing tasks is predicted by Fitts’ law. When an unwanted object, or obstacle , intrudes into the user’s path, users curve the stroke to avoid hitting that obstacle. We empirically show that, in the presence of an obstacle, modified Fitts models for pointing with obstacle avoidance can significantly improve the prediction accuracy of movement time compared with standard Fitts’ law. Yet, we also found that when an object is (only) close to the crossing path, i.e., a distractor , users still curve their stroke, even though the object does not intrude. We tested the effects of distractor proximity and length. While the crossing motion is modified by a nearby distractor, our results also identify that overall its effect on crossing times was small, and thus Fitts’ law can still be applied safely with distractors.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.275 · 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