Improving Inclusion of Virtual Reality Through Enhancing Interactions in Low-Fidelity VR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Virtual reality (VR) is positioned to become a technology for everyday use; we are beginning to see a shift in VR from primarily being for entertainment to supporting office work, socializing, and everyday tasks. Despite falling prices of modern VR devices, their cost remains high, presenting a barrier to VR access for a large portion of the population. This barrier primarily prevents people of lower socio-economic status from accessing a technology and participating in what may soon be a predominant computing paradigm. Low-fi VR, a low-cost alternative, has potential to democratize VR, increase its inclusivity, and diversify research participants in this space. However, its limited interaction capabilities and input options prevents low-fi VR from supporting most productive VR applications or offering effective VR experiences. This position paper explores the current state of low-fi VR hardware and interactions, identifying current problems and potential solutions, and discusses the benefits low-fi VR can provide if advancements are made.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".