Proposed Cartographic Design Principles for 3D Maps: A Contribution to an Extended Cartographic Theory
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
Today, the technical generation of modern perspective views (so-called 3D maps) for static, animated, and dynamic use is highly advanced. Nevertheless, aspects of the design of such views and of their impact on readers have rarely been investigated in cartographic research. The establishment of cartographic design principles is missing, to a large extent. Within the framework of a research project, propositions for such principles were derived by evaluating settings and options for specific graphic variables. Based on an inventory of design aspects and graphic variables for 3D maps, selected cues for two major design aspects (degree of abstraction and size of map objects) and five different graphic variables (viewing inclination, zoom factor, light direction, haze density, and sky structure) were evaluated by means of 3D map examples and expert interviews. A set of cartographic design principles was derived from this evaluation and proposed for more detailed user tests. The proposed design principles could also be seen as the beginning of a framework to extend cartographic theory and assist map authors in the iterative design process.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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