Visual thinking in virtual environments: evaluating multidisciplinary interaction through drawing ideation in real-time remote co-design
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
This study investigated remote multidisciplinary sketching ideation across three systems: virtual reality (VR), tablet drawing, and uploading images of paper drawings. Though cumbersome, expressiveness and line control with drawing on paper was still noted to be important even in remote sketching, particularly by people experienced with this method. The tablet method was user-friendly, fostering effective collaborative understanding, especially in object-based ideation. Existing skills played a significant role in shaping collaborative perceptions. Despite challenges, VR exhibited promise in fostering creative expression and visualization in collaborative design workflows. Notably, it proved beneficial in early problem-solving stages where spatial and sensory considerations influenced structural decisions—potentially useful after general brainstorming and 2D sketching has established themes and objects. This research contributes to further understanding of VR’s evolving role in design thinking, its synergy with other drawing methods in remote sketching collaboration, and the evolving landscape of diverse user needs in ideation processes.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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