Being where, with whom, and when it happens: spatial, interpersonal, and temporal presence while viewing live streaming of collegiate sports in virtual reality
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although virtual reality (VR) is most popularly known for its applications to gaming, other entertainment applications are increasingly being explored including in the sports media industry, but little research has so far examined the experiences induced by VR viewing of a live sporting event. Materials and methods: Participants ( n = 93) were university students who were approached in the context of a field study from a nearby community eatery area on the university campus to watch brief segments of a 360° live stream of the home games of their university volleyball and basketball teams both while wearing and not wearing an inexpensive smart-phone based head-mounted display (HMD). Immediately afterward, participants then reported on their relative experience of spatial, interpersonal, and temporal presence, as well as their satisfaction-preference with each of the two viewing modalities, in response to brief face-valid screening questions. Results: The majority of participants experienced greater presence while wearing the VR headset, and approximately one in every two reported preferring to watch the games in VR. Participants’ experience of spatial presence independently correlated with preferring to watch the games in VR. Discussion: Media vendors should offer VR viewing of sports including via inexpensive, smart-phone mediated VR as an additional, cost-effective alternative means of heightening fans’ experience of virtual presence at the games when fans are unable to go to the games in person.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it