MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194964220 · doi:10.11159/mhci21.301

Aerial Display Using Lenticular Lenses

2021· article· en· W3194964220 on OpenAlex
Kazuhisa Yanaka, Toshiaki Yamanouchi

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Electrical Engineering and Computer Systems and Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)OpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aerial display that can float a two-dimensional image or a three-dimensional object in an empty space is important as a noncontact interface. Aerial displays have two types: a reflection type that uses a mirror and a refraction type that involves a lens. The latter has the advantage of being easily miniaturized because the path of light does not bend much. The method using two commercially available lenticular lenses is inexpensive. However, the principle of the method is not yet fully understood. In this study, the rules of light rays passing through the lens were applied to explain this principle clearly. For further confirmation, a simulation was performed. Results revealed that the lens group consisting of two convex lenses arranged at the interval of twice the focal length as well as the lens group consisting of three convex lenses arranged at intervals the focal length reflected parallel rays coming from an angle as if they were mirrors. When the number of lenses was set to 3, the viewing range widened.

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 score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.201 · 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