MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388193465 · doi:10.1145/3586182.3615806

SwarmFidget: Exploring Programmable Actuated Fidgeting with Swarm Robots

2023· article· en· W4388193465 on OpenAlexafffund
Jiashuo Luo, JangHyeon Lee, Veronika Domova, Yuqi Yao, Parsa Rajabi, Lawrence H. Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser UniversityCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsComputer scienceRobotActuatorGestureArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fidgeting is a common behavior that one tends to engage in during periods of inattention or mind wandering. Although attempts were undertaken to enhance fidget devices with advanced technology, such as sensors and displays, no works exist that explored fidgeting with actuated devices. To fill this gap, we introduce the concept of programmable actuated fidgeting and the design space for SwarmFidget. Programmable actuated fidgeting is a type of fidgeting that involves devices integrated with actuators, sensors, and computing to enable a dynamic and customizable interactive fidgeting experience. SwarmFidget is an instance of a platform where tabletop swarm robots are used to facilitate programmable actuated fidgeting. To engage with actuated fidgets, users can input commands through various modalities such as touch or gesture, and the actuators in the fidgeting device will respond in a programmable manner to provide haptic, visual, or audio feedback.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207