MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7025551912

Welcome to the TEI’10 Proceedings

2010· article· en· W7025551912 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicProbability and Statistical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionSession (web analytics)Key (lock)Field (mathematics)Ubiquitous computing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We welcome you to the proceedings of the 4th ACM International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction -- TEI'10, held in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the 25th -27th of January 2010.<br/><br/>TEI'10 continues the pursuit of key areas of innovation in respect to tangible, embedded, and embodied interactions. These concerns include the interlinking of digital and physical worlds through tangible and embodied interaction and the computational augmentation of everyday objects and environments in new ways through embedded technologies. Research and practice in these innovative areas lead to works of tangible interfaces, graspable interfaces, physical computing, whole-body interaction, gesture-based interfaces, and interactive surfaces. Designing such systems requires interdisciplinary thinking as their creation not only encompasses software, electronics, and mechanics, but also form, aesthetics, and social impact. The high quality, original, and diverse works in these proceedings is a testament to the growth and importance of the field of tangible computing.<br/><br/>The call for papers attracted 160 submissions from approximately 20 countries spanning Africa, Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. All submissions were peer and blind reviewed and received at least three independent expert reviews. In total, 54 papers were accepted for an acceptance rate of 34%. The papers are a mix of 2, 4, 8 pages in length. From these contributions, the program at the conference includes 16 long talks, 8 short talks, 1 short talk and a demo, 22 demos, and 7 posters. We are proud to continue the tradition of a plenary session for all talks, demos and posters. The paper sessions are organized along five themes. Bridging the Physical and Digital Worlds is at the center of tangible computing investigations that explore the intersections of computation and physicality. Toolkits and Enabling Technologies explores the functionality of applications and technologies for users and the tools for designers and developers. Physical Interactions, Perspectives, and Design Techniques represent the emerging and refined thinking in the field that investigates embodiment, reflections and frameworks, and emerging techniques. Materials, Garments and Lights uncovers the serious investigations into new materials and expressions for tangible computing. Lastly, Learning through Physical Interaction contributes to the invaluable intersections between tangible computing and learning. In addition, the demonstrations and posters session gives concrete and vibrant evidence for the serious and diverse research in the field.<br/><br/>We are also proud to include innovations in the conference program this year. A new track was created known as Explorations aimed at attracting thought provoking, evocative, visually and sensually rich work by a diverse group of creators. 46 submissions were received from which an expert jury accepted 10 contributions. These contributions are interwoven into the papers and demonstration tracks at the conference. Another new track is Studios, a series of 21 workshop sessions open to all conference participants that offer novel hands-on experiences ranging from the exploration of new development toolkits, to prototype design techniques, and the use of emerging or traditional materials in creatively applied way. Lastly, the Graduate Student Consortium reflects the essential need for the participation and development of new scholars in the areas of tangible computing. 38 submissions were received and 13 contributions were accepted after blind reviews by at least three independent and expert reviewers per submission.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1710.014

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIT University Of Copenhagen (IT University of Copenhagen)Same topicProbability and Statistical ResearchFrench-language works237,207