MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402722152 · doi:10.1145/3670947.3670964

Interactive Mediation Techniques for Error-Aware Gesture Input Systems

2024· article· en· W4402722152 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGraphics Interface · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHand Gesture Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGestureHuman–computer interactionMediationMultimediaArtificial intelligenceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Input false-positive errors, where a system recognizes an input action that the user did not perform, have been shown to be particularly costly for user experience. Recent work has suggested that eye-gaze behavior immediately following an input event can be used to detect whether the input was intended by a user or was the result of a false-positive error. The ability to detect these errors could enable systems that assist the user with error recovery, but little is currently known about how such error mediation techniques might be designed, or the benefits they could provide. This paper presents an initial investigation of the design of error mediation techniques, and an evaluation of their potential benefits. A controlled study demonstrated that error mediation techniques can save time when recovering from errors by helping users to notice and resolve these errors quickly when they occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.289 · 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