MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381188071 · doi:10.1145/3593236

WAMS: A Flexible API for Visual Workspaces Across Multiple Surfaces

2023· article· en· W4381188071 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Bateman, Carl Gutwin, Hamid Mansoor, Miguel A. Nacenta, Michael Kamp, Mykyta Baliesnyi, Kolton Gagnon, Jesse Rollheiser

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkspaceComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Human–computer interactionExtensibilityArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applications that use multiple devices and surfaces provide new opportunities for innovative interaction -- but despite the wide variety of research that has been carried out on multi-surface systems, building these kinds of applications is still difficult. In particular, multi-surface apps that use interactive visual workspaces are complicated because current tools do not provide low-level access to a connected and interactive graphical canvas that is shown on different devices. This difficulty limits the explorations that designers and developers can carry out within the multi-surface design space. To address this problem, we have developed WAMS -- an open-source web-based toolkit that provides several programming abstractions for building visual-workspace applications across multiple surfaces. WAMS uses three main concepts -- a virtual visual workspace, views onto that workspace, and graphical workspace objects -- and provides support for connecting multiple devices, creating and manipulating objects, managing and laying out views, and handling events from multiple surfaces. WAMS simplifies the development of a wide variety of applications including composite display configurations, shared-workspace groupware, systems that place different UI elements onto different devices, and bring-your-own-device applications. We describe WAMS's main abstractions and concepts, provide several examples that show the breadth of the approach, and assess the toolkit in terms of effectiveness, coverage, extensibility, and integration with existing practices and tools.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer InteractionSame topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207