MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225102759 · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519692

MultiFingerBubble: A 3D Bubble Cursor Variation for Dense Environments

2022· article· en· W4225102759 on OpenAlexaff
William Delamare, Maxime Daniel, Khalad Hasan

Bibliographic record

VenueCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInterregEuropean Regional Development FundEuropean Commission
KeywordsCursor (databases)Computer scienceBubbleVisualizationData visualizationArtificial intelligenceVolume (thermodynamics)3D interactionComputer visionComputer graphics (images)Virtual reality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we propose MultiFingerBubble, a new variation of the 3D Bubble Cursor. The 3D Bubble Cursor is sensitive to distractors in dense environments: the volume selection resizes to snap-to nearby targets. To prevent the cursor to constantly re-snap to neighboring targets, MultiFingerBubble includes multiple targets in the volume selection, and hence increases the targets effective width. Each target in the volume selection is associated with a specific finger. Users can then select a target by flexing its corresponding finger. We report on a controlled in-lab experiment to explore various design options regarding the number of fingers to use, and the target-to-finger mapping and its visualization. Our study results suggest that MultiFingerBubble is best used with three fingers and colored lines to reveal the mapping between targets and fingers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended AbstractsSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207