MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985548644 · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.858

Recovering data from scanned graphs: Performance of Frantz’s g3data software

2008· article· en· W1985548644 on OpenAlexafffund
Ben Bauer, Michael Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Research Methods · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTrent University
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftwareComputer graphics (images)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recovering data points from scanned or photocopied graphs by hand is time consuming, prone to error, and it requires patience and a steady hand. An alternative is to use g3data-a program that reads many common image file types and allows accurate estimation of data point coordinates from the graphs contained in these files. Limits of the software are discussed, and validation of its accuracy using graphs with known data values is presented.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.538
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.031 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavior Research MethodsSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207