MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285044320 · doi:10.22215/etd/2022-15038

Evaluating XR Techniques in Air Travel Design for the Early Stages of the Technology Readiness Level.

2022· dissertation· en· W4285044320 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Astles

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkflowVirtual realityAugmented realityField (mathematics)Collaborative designEngineeringDesign technologyHuman–computer interactionIndustrial designComputer scienceMultimediaSystems engineeringSystems designMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extended Reality (XR) is an emerging technology and potential tool to create early design concept sketches for remote collaborative design, review and evaluation.In the field of air travel design, researchers, designers and engineers have been studying the use of XR (e.g., Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality) to support design workflows and comparing this new technique to traditional industrial design methods.This research explores how designers can implement XR techniques in developing early concepts for air cabin design within the Technology Readiness Level framework.The research consists of 2 phases: (1) comparing virtual reality sketching to traditional sketching methods from the researcher's first-hand experience; and (2) the distribution of traditional 2D versus 3D VR developed sketches for designers and the public to review the designs and evaluate their experience with these 2 mediums.The finding from the exploration identifies the advantages of using XR techniques for design and the limitation of learning and of sharing 3D sketches for publishing and sharing with the public.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAugmented Reality ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207