MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387517533 · doi:10.1109/mpot.2023.3318929

Robotic training program for astronauts using mixed reality: A concept study

2023· article· en· W4387517533 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Potentials · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAugmented Reality Applications
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space AgencyÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurpriseTraining (meteorology)Health careEngineeringMixed realityEngineering managementComputer scienceKnowledge managementVirtual realityPsychologyHuman–computer interactionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade, we have witnessed rapid technology advancements associated with AR, VR, and MR devices. This has led to several business- and consumer-oriented products becoming available on the market. Over the years, both start-ups and major companies have developed fascinating and accessible devices, opening many new possibilities in various domains. The new possibilities for the training and education industry are particularly compelling. Consequently, it is no surprise that these technologies are actively being evaluated for various training contexts (Xie et al., 2021) and compared to their traditional equivalent solutions (Gross et al., 2023). In a near future, these innovations will directly impact our professional and personal environments, from providing new simple collaboration tools (Wang et al., 2019) up to how our health-care specialists are being trained (Schild et al., 2022).

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 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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.901
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.225 · 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