MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225129379 · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519705

AR Music Visualizers: Application Space and Design Guidelines

2022· article· en· W4225129379 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

VenueCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationSpace (punctuation)Augmented realityMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Music visualization has recently become a popular application of augmented-reality (AR) technology. However, despite their various designs and functionalities, their potential benefits and the effectiveness of their designs are not well explored. By interviewing experts and generating and evaluating design ideas, we offer two contributions: (1) the application space of AR music visualizers, defined by the categories of their potential benefits and the constraints from their contexts of usage; and (2) a four-step design guidelines to design a visualizer that achieves the intended benefit(s), while appropriately handling the contextual constraints. We believe that this paper can provide a concrete basis for designing effective AR music visualizers in the future.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.179
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.188 · 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