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
Designed haptic feedback—technology-mediated touch feedback—has the potential to mediate positive and meaningful experiences. These experiences are rich and complex in nature and thus challenging to design. Established User Experience (UX) and Haptic Experience (HX) models describe the design of experiences; however, they are too general and evaluation-focused to inform haptic experience design. We review 104 publications designing haptic experiences and analyse how researchers consider pragmatic, hedonic, and eudaimonic qualities of haptic experience. Our findings show that researchers mainly engage with the pragmatic qualities of the experience. We thus propose a unified model for HX for understanding the design of haptic experiences, combining key elements of UX and HX research to give haptic designers a tool for thinking about the rich and complex haptic experiences elicited by their designs. This raises open questions for haptic experience research, as designing mediated touch experiences through haptic technology remains challenging.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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