MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306941939 · doi:10.1162/pres_a_00361

A Quantifiable Framework for Describing Immersion

2020· article· en· W4306941939 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

VenuePRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmersion (mathematics)Sensory systemPerceptionSensationVirtual realityComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionMathematicsArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychologyNeuroscienceGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Current definitions of immersion describe its relationship to presence and allow for relative comparisons between the immersive qualities of Virtual Reality (VR) systems, but lack the ability to describe the immersion supported by a system as an absolute quantity. In this article, we present an abstract model of perception, defining sensory units as the smallest biological registers of sensation within the body. Two metrics of immersion are introduced: the immersed sensory range, and the immersed sensory field, which can be defined for both individual sensory units and entire sensory categories. We define an isolated sensory unit as one that is shielded from non-VR stimuli, and derive the terms isolated field and isolated range from this definition. These metrics are further described as ratios, resulting in a set of theoretical and practical attributes which can be used to quantify the immersive potential of a VR experience.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.183 · 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