A Mandala Browser User Study: Visualizing XML Versions of Shakespeare's Plays
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
ABSTRACT We report the results of a small user study of a visual XML browsing prototype, called the Mandala browser, where dots representing entire documents or portions of documents are plotted around the periphery of a circle and drawn inward by colored magnets that are assigned values by the user. The result is akin to a Venn diagram that provides a visual representation of the interaction between multiple Boolean queries. In this study, eleven participants were given a pre-study interview, then asked to carry out a series of tasks where the dots represented speeches in plays by Shakespeare and finally were debriefed in a concluding interview. We gained from this study a range of valuable insights into how details of the Mandala browser design could be improved. Participants mentioned, for instance, that they would like to retain a connection between results and the visualizations that produced them, that they would like to be able to make notes on result sets, and that they would like to be able to save subsets within results. They also asked for tools that support collaborative searching, as well as for federated searching across collections. The user feedback confirmed the potential value of the Mandala interface and provided guidance for the next iteration of development. (ProQuest: ... denotes obscured text omitted.) INTRODUCTION Browsing interfaces are intended for people interested -fn gajmng some understanding of the contents of a collection, or in some cases pftflftse results from an initial search retrieval. Browsing interfaces can therefore be seen as having a complementary relationship with retrieval interfaces, where the goal is to obtain a retrieval target. A typical approach to information browsing is to provide the user with a list of documents, which may be ordered according to some convention such as alphabetically by author or title, or chronologically by date of publication (sometimes called faceted browsing). A more visually complex approach is to organize documents in nested tiles where relevant information is expressed through the position, dimension and appearance of each tile (Schneiderman, 1992). Yet another approach is the Scatter/Gather browser proposed by Pirolli et al. (1996), who developed a prototype visualization where documents were represented by dots that could be grouped and subsetted dynamically by the user. The literature includes a wide variety of examples of visually compelling browsing interfaces, including Small (1996) who proposed a 3D prospect view for browsing texts of Shakespeare's plays and Bederson (2001), who described asystemfororganizingthumbnailsof images. More recently, designers working with public APIs (programmatic interfaces) from social networking sites like www.flickr.com have developed a number of browsing interfaces that extend Bederson's ideas through tools suchas the color picker by Bumgardner (2005). Another example is the orbiting globes of information at http://dartdesign.de/, which allow the user to browse a constellation of moving representations that rotate under user control. The various crystal-based displays by Spoerri (2007) provide still further examples, and the 'dust & magnet' project by Yi et al. (2005) shows an inventive and interactive use of the magnet metaphor. In the context of rich-prospect browsing (Ruecker 2003), each of these interfaces includes some degree of meaningful representation, coupled with the provision of tools for manipulatingthe display. Browsing interfaces can also be used for studying parts of individual documents, such as the speeches in a play. In addition to the discussion of browsing interfaces and their features, the literature also includes discussion of the methods of evaluation. For instance, Plaisant (2004) suggests the need for new and more comprehensive strategies for evaluating the success of browsing interface designs. While most browsing interfaces provide both some representation of individual items and tools for manipulating the display, not all are concerned with the structural arrangement of the items (word clouds created at Wordle. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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