Adjustable properties of visual representations: Improving the quality of human‐information interaction
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
Complex cognitive activities, such as analytical reasoning, problem solving, and sense making, are often performed through the mediation of interactive computational tools. Examples include visual analytics, decision support, and educational tools. Through interaction with visual representations of information at the visual interface of these tools, a joint, coordinated cognitive system is formed. This partnership results in a number of relational properties—those depending on both humans and tools—that researchers and designers must be aware of if such tools are to effectively support the performance of complex cognitive activities. This article presents 10 properties of interactive visual representations that are essential and relational and whose values can be adjusted through interaction. By adjusting the values of these properties, better coordination between humans and tools can be effected, leading to higher quality performance of complex cognitive activities. This article examines how the values of these properties affect cognitive processing and visual reasoning and demonstrates the necessity of making their values adjustable—all of which is situated within a broader theoretical framework concerned with human‐information interaction in complex cognitive activities. This framework can facilitate systematic research, design, and evaluation in numerous fields including information visualization, health informatics, visual analytics, and educational technology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.007 |
| 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