MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W106189515 · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2010.10

Novel User Interfaces for Diagram Versioning and Differencing

2010· article· en· W106189515 on OpenAlexaff
Darius Dadgari, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic workshops in computing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware versioningComputer scienceDiagramSoftwareProgramming languageSoftware engineeringDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Easily available software for diagram creation does not support the comparison of different versions and the merging of such versions. We present new methods and techniques for easy versioning of general two-dimensional diagrams. Multiple novel versioning methods for diagram versioning are compared to each other as well as to previous work in a user study. Participants in a user study preferred the Translucency View and Master Diagram Scenario to the other investigated methods and scenarios.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.005

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic workshops in computingSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207