ResponsiveView: Enhancing 3D Artifact Viewing Experience in VR Museums
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
The viewing experience of 3D artifacts in Virtual Reality (VR) museums is constrained and affected by various factors, such as pedestal height, viewing distance, and object scale. User experiences regarding these factors can vary subjectively, making it difficult to identify a universal optimal solution. In this paper, we collect empirical data on user-determined parameters for the optimal viewing experience in VR museums. By modeling users' viewing behaviors in VR museums, we derive predictive functions that configure the pedestal height, calculate the optimal viewing distance, and adjust the appropriate handheld scale for the optimal viewing experience. This led to our novel 3D responsive design, ResponsiveView. Similar to the responsive web design that automatically adjusts for different screen sizes, ResponsiveView automatically adjusts the parameters in the VR environment to facilitate users' viewing experience. The design has been validated with two popular inputs available in current commercial VR devices: controller-based interactions and hand tracking, demonstrating enhanced viewing experience in VR museums.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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