This is a "3D display" in the same sense that a curved monitor is a "3D display" because it exists in three-dimensional space. The actual image being displayed is two-dimensional (ignoring the red-blue anaglyph gimmick).
I think it would be more accurate to just call this a transparent heads-up display.
We don't "see" with our eyes, we see with our brain, based on input received from the eyes. The brain itself is perfectly capable of constructing a 3D representation based on the two planar projections that are registered by the eyes.
What makes something 3D, rather than 2D or 2.5D, is that it can be observed from different angles by multiple observers at the same time. It's a fairly trivial test, and this fails it. That doesn't mean its not cool, but it does mean it's not 3D and calling it 3D is plain wrong. Especially when it's something you're publishing a paper about in a scientific publication. This is instead exactly as was commented on: a curved "monitor" that happens to be calibrated to only seem 3D exactly at a single viewing angle, for a single observer, similar to Pepper's Ghost (which only works properly when viewers are positioned at a specific angle to the glass pane).
I think it would be more accurate to just call this a transparent heads-up display.