Tourgether360: Collaborative Exploration of 360° Videos using Pseudo-Spatial Navigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative exploration of 360 videos with contemporary interfaces is challenging because collaborators do not have awareness of one another's viewing activities. Tourgether360 enhances social exploration of 360° tour videos using a pseudo-spatial navigation technique that provides both an overhead "context" view of the environment as a minimap, as well as a shared pseudo-3D environment for exploring the video. Collaborators are embodied as avatars along a track depending on their position in the video timeline and can point and synchronize their playback. We evaluated the Tourgether360 concept through two studies: first, a comparative study with a simplified version of Tourgether360 with collaborator embodiments and a minimap versus a conventional interface; second, an exploratory study where we studied how collaborators used Tourgether360 to navigate and explore 360° environments together. We found that participants adopted the Tourgether360 approach with ease and enjoyed the shared social aspects of the experience. Participants reported finding the experience similar to an interactive social video game.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".