Mixed Reality Flood Visualizations: Reflections on Development and Usability of Current Systems
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
Interest in and use of 3D visualizations for analysis and communication of flooding risks has been increasing. At the same time, an ecosystem of 3D user interfaces has also been emerging. Together, they offer exciting potential opportunities for flood visualization. In order to understand how we turn potential into real value, we need to develop better understandings of technical workflows, capabilities of the resulting systems, their usability, and implications for practice. Starting with existing geospatial datasets, we develop single user and collaborative visualization prototypes that leverage capabilities of the state-of-the art HoloLens 2 mixed reality system. By using the 3D displays, positional tracking, spatial mapping, and hand- and eye-tracking, we seek to unpack the capabilities of these tools for meaningful spatial data practice. We reflect on the user experience, hardware performance, and usability of these tools and discuss the implications of these technologies for flood risk management, and broader spatial planning practice.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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