MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315631033 · doi:10.1145/3570343

StructureSense

2022· article· en· W4315631033 on OpenAlexaff
Xincheng Huang, Keylonnie L. Miller, Alanson P. Sample, Nikola Banović

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstructiveComputer scienceFocus (optics)UsabilityObject (grammar)Process (computing)Track (disk drive)Human–computer interactionTracking (education)Artificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent advancements in object-tracking technologies can turn mundane constructive assemblies into Tangible User Interfaces (TUI) media. Users rely on instructions or their own creativity to build both permanent and temporary structures out of such objects. However, most existing object-tracking technologies focus on tracking structures as monoliths, making it impossible to infer and track the user's assembly process and the resulting structures. Technologies that can track the assembly process often rely on specially fabricated assemblies, limiting the types of objects and structures they can track. Here, we present StructureSense, a tracking system based on passive UHF-RFID sensing that infers constructive assembly structures from object motion. We illustrated StructureSense in two use cases (as guided instructions and authoring tool) on two different constructive sets (wooden lamp and Jumbo Blocks), and evaluated system performance and usability. Our results showed the feasibility of using StructureSense to track mundane constructive assembly structures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0770.027

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous TechnologiesSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207