Metaverse Key Requirements and Platforms Survey
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
The growing interest in the metaverse has led to an abundance of platforms, each with its own unique features and limitations. This paper’s objective is two-fold. First, we aim at providing an objective analysis of requirements that need to be fulfilled by metaverse platforms. We survey a broad set of criteria including interoperability, immersiveness, persistence, multimodal and social interaction, scalability, level of openness, configurability, market access, security, and blockchain integration, among others. Second, we review a wide range of existing metaverse platforms, and we critically evaluate their ability to meet the requirements listed. We identify their limitations, which must be addressed to establish fair, trustworthy, and interactive experiences within the metaverse ecosystem. Looking forward, we highlight the need for further research and development in areas such as decentralization, improved security and privacy measures, and the integration of emerging technologies like blockchain and AI, as essential building blocks for a resilient and secure metaverse.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it