MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988241068 · doi:10.1145/2591510

Employing a Parametric Model for Analytic Provenance

2014· article· en· W1988241068 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersBoeing
KeywordsComputer scienceScripting languageTheoretical computer scienceDependency graphReuseGraphProgramming languageData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a propagation-based parametric symbolic model approach to supporting analytic provenance. This approach combines a script language to capture and encode the analytic process and a parametrically controlled symbolic model to represent and reuse the logic of the analysis process. Our approach first appeared in a visual analytics system called CZSaw. Using a script to capture the analyst’s interactions at a meaningful system action level allows the creation of a parametrically controlled symbolic model in the form of a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG). Using the DAG allows propagating changes. Graph nodes correspond to variables in CZSaw scripts, which are results (data and data visualizations) generated from user interactions. The user interacts with variables representing entities or relations to create the next step’s results. Graph edges represent dependency relationships among nodes. Any change to a variable triggers the propagation mechanism to update downstream dependent variables and in turn updates data views to reflect the change. The analyst can reuse parts of the analysis process by assigning new values to a node in the graph. We evaluated this symbolic model approach by solving three IEEE VAST Challenge contest problems (from IEEE VAST 2008, 2009, and 2010). In each of these challenges, the analyst first created a symbolic model to explore, understand, analyze, and solve a particular subproblem and then reused the model via its dependency graph propagation mechanism to solve similar subproblems. With the script and model, CZSaw supports the analytic provenance by capturing, encoding, and reusing the analysis process. The analyst can recall the chronological states of the analysis process with the CZSaw script and may interpret the underlying rationale of the analysis with the symbolic model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.279 · 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