One Ring to Rule Them All
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smartrings have potential to extend our ubiquitous control through their always available and finger-worn location, as well as their quick and subtle interactions. As such, smartrings have gained popularity in research and in commercial usage; however, they often concentrate on a singular or novel aspect of a smartring's potential. While with any emerging technology the focus on these individual components is important, there is a lack of broader empirical understanding regarding a user's intentions for smartring usage. Thus in this work, we investigate concrete and reported smartring usage scenarios throughout the daily lives of participants. During a two-week in-situ diary study (N = 14), utilizing a mock smartring, we provide an initial understanding of the potential tasks, daily activities, connected devices, and interactions for which augmentation with a smartring was desired. We further highlight patterns of imagined smartring use found by our participants. Finally, we provide and discuss guidelines, grounded through our found knowledge, to inform research and development towards the design of future smartrings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.065 |
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".