Tesseract: Querying Spatial Design Recordings by Manipulating Worlds in Miniature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New immersive 3D design tools enable the creation of spatial design recordings, capturing collaborative design activities. By reviewing captured spatial design sessions, which include user activities, workflows, and tool use, users can reflect on their own design processes, learn new workflows, and understand others’ design rationale. However, finding interesting moments in design activities can be challenging: they contain multimodal data (such as user motion and logged events) occurring over time which can be difficult to specify when searching, and are typically distributed over many sessions or recordings. We present Tesseract, a Worlds-in-Miniature-based system to expressively query VR spatial design recordings. Tesseract consists of the Search Cube interface acting as a centralized stage-to-search container, and four querying tools for specifying multimodal data to enable users to find interesting moments in past design activities. We studied ten participants who used Tesseract and found support for our miniature-based stage-to-search approach.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".