MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401120035 · doi:10.1002/sdtp.17484

16‐2: <i>Invited Paper:</i> Causes and Consequences of IPD Mismatch in XR Devices

2024· article· en· W4401120035 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie M. Wilcox, Robert S. Allison

Bibliographic record

VenueSID Symposium Digest of Technical Papers · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Imaging Technologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineering physicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Binocular 3D display systems, including virtual, augmented and mixed reality (collectively referred to as XR) devices support stereoscopic depth perception by presenting dichoptic views separately to the two eyes rendered according to their vantage points. A common human factors issue is a mismatch between the observer's physical interpupillary distance (IPD) and 1) the separation between the device optics and 2) the rendered/captured content. This paper provides a theoretical review of the importance and consequences for user experience of accurately estimating IPD and incorporating it into HMD adjustments, calibration and rendering.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSID Symposium Digest of Technical PapersSame topicAdvanced Optical Imaging TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207