MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247176353 · doi:10.1145/571990.571991

Customizable physical interfaces for interacting with conventional applications

2002· article· en· W4247176353 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphical user interfaceComputer sciencePersonalizationHuman–computer interactionUser interfaceInterface (matter)Control (management)Function (biology)Post-WIMPGraphical user interface testingUser interface designProgramming languageWorld Wide WebUser experience designOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When using today's productivity applications, people rely heavily on graphical controls (GUI widgets) as the way to invoke application functions and to obtain feedback. Yet we all know that certain controls can be difficult or tedious to find and use. As an alternative, a customizable physical interface lets an end-user easily bind a modest number of physical controls to similar graphical counterparts. The user can then use the physical control to invoke the corresponding graphical control's function, or to display its graphical state in a physical form. To show how customizable physical interfaces work, we present examples that illustrate how our combined phidgets® and widget tap packages are used to link existing application widgets to physical controls. While promising, our implementation prompts a number of issues relevant to others pursuing interface customization.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimedia Communication and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207