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
A variety of consumer Augmented Reality (AR) applications have been released on mobile devices and novel immersive headsets over the last five years, creating a breadth of new AR-enabled experiences. However, these applications, particularly those designed for immersive headsets, require users to employ unfamiliar gestural input and adopt novel interaction paradigms. To better understand how everyday users discover gestures and classify the types of interaction challenges they face, we observed how 25 novices from diverse backgrounds and technical knowledge used four different AR applications requiring a range of interaction techniques. A detailed analysis of gesture interaction traces showed that users struggled to discover the correct gestures, with the majority of errors occurring when participants could not determine the correct sequence of actions to perform or could not evaluate their actions. To further reflect on the prevalence of our findings, we carried out an expert validation study with eight professional AR designers, engineers, and researchers. We discuss implications for designing discoverable gestural input techniques that align with users' mental models, inventing AR-specific onboarding and help systems, and enhancing system-level machine recognition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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