MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244346392 · doi:10.1145/585060.585063

Multimedia document engineering in MCF

2002· article· en· W4244346392 on OpenAlexaff
Peter King, Jocelyne Nanard, Marc Nanard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReuseMultimediaAbstractionSoftware engineeringGranularityHuman–computer interactionAbstraction layerFormalism (music)Encapsulation (networking)SoftwareProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article demonstrates how several of the general-purpose principles which have proved successful in the area of large-scale software development and maintenance are relevant to multimedia design. We present the Media Construction Formalism, MCF, whose high level concepts encompass the principles of abstraction, modularity, encapsulation, and reuse, which facilitate formal specification during the initial steps of multimedia document engineering. MCF has been implemented as a user-friendly design environment, which includes a special-purpose structured editor providing a visual representation of partial designs. The MCF system promotes the capture of constructs which may emerge during a design, and which can be manipulated by the multimedia designer and executed by the machine at different levels of granularity and detail. MCF uses the metaphor of roles, players and actors to provide generic design descriptions of multimedia scenarios, and encompasses a powerful temporal and reactive model.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimedia Communication and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207