MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409602127 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-018

Virtual Reality in Chinese Modern Video Art and Cultural Design Application

2025· article· en· W4409602127 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Media and Visual Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVirtual realityComputer scienceArtComputer graphics (images)Human–computer interactionMultimedia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid development of virtual reality technology, its application in the field of art and design is attracting increasing attention.Based on the perspective of user demand, the article combines the Kano model to analyze user satisfaction with virtual reality technology used in modern Chinese image culture design, and finds that its landing point is the desired attribute in the first quadrant, with the Better and Worse coefficients of 0.531 and -0.141, respectively, which indicates that users expect the application of virtual reality technology in the design of image art and culture.Then the evaluation index system of VR image art and culture design is constructed, and the principal component analysis method is used to assign weights and establish the quantitative model of VR image art and culture design.The analysis shows that the weight of the sensory level is the largest 0.3780, and users attach great importance to the aesthetic experience (0.3780) and emotional experience (0.2710) of VR image art and culture design.The application of virtual reality can draw on the results of the quantitative model to design optimization strategies, combine traditional and modern elements, use the interactivity of VR to enhance artistic expression, create an immersive experience, and create more in-depth and original works of video art and culture.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.780

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicDigital Media and Visual ArtFrench-language works237,207