Tangible Cultural Analytics: Using Augmented Reality to Research Cultural Artifacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that cultural heritage researchers encounter a number of challenges during their research process when working with artifacts and ephemera. Their current processes can be costly and time consuming, and include extensive amounts of both online and offline research. This MRP aims to aid researchers during their research process by providing a digital solution to ease some of the pain points that they currently face. This digital solution is in the form of an augmented reality mobile application. This paper will analyze the definition of augmented reality and how it is currently used in the cultural sector, identify the problems researchers face through primary and secondary research, provide a solution to those challenges, describe the user flow of the mobile application, and use the Design Thinking model to explain the design decisions made for this prototype. This MRP is in collaboration with the Ryerson Synaesthetic Media Lab and the University of Toronto’s Thomas Fischer Rare Book Library, and was completed with group members Daniella Kalinda and Ben Ashley.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".