MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206161428 · doi:10.1145/3472749.3474746

Route Tapestries: Navigating 360° Virtual Tour Videos Using Slit-Scan Visualizations

2021· article· en· W3206161428 on OpenAlexaff
Jiannan Li, Jiahe Lyu, Maurício Sousa, Ravin Balakrishnan, Anthony Tang, Tovi Grossman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceThumbnailComputer visionComputer graphics (images)UsabilityFrame (networking)Perspective (graphical)Virtual realityArtificial intelligenceDistortion (music)VisualizationProjection (relational algebra)Frame rateTimelineHuman–computer interactionImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasingly popular way of experiencing remote places is by viewing 360° virtual tour videos, which show the surrounding view while traveling through an environment. However, finding particular locations in these videos can be difficult because current interfaces rely on distorted frame previews for navigation. To alleviate this usability issue, we propose Route Tapestries, continuous orthographic-perspective projection of scenes along camera routes. We first introduce an algorithm for automatically constructing Route Tapestries from a 360° video, inspired by the slit-scan photography technique. We then present a desktop video player interface using a Route Tapestry timeline for navigation. An online evaluation using a target-seeking task showed that Route Tapestries allowed users to locate targets 22% faster than with YouTube-style equirectangular previews and reduced the failure rate by 75% compared to a more conventional row-of-thumbnail strip preview. Our results highlight the value of reducing visual distortion and providing continuous visual contexts in previews for navigating 360°virtual tour videos.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

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 communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207