Information visualization and large‐scale repositories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To describe how information visualization can be used in the design of interface tools for large‐scale repositories. Design/methodology/approach One challenge for designers in the context of large‐scale repositories is to create interface tools that help users find specific information of interest. In order to be most effective, these tools need to leverage the cognitive characteristics of the target users. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the authors' target users are scientists and engineers who can be characterized as higher‐order, analytical thinkers. In this paper, the authors describe a visualization tool they have created for making the authors' large‐scale digital object repositories more usable for them: SearchGraph, which facilitates data set analysis by displaying search results in the form of a two‐ or three‐dimensional interactive scatter plot. Findings Using SearchGraph, users can view a condensed, abstract visualization of search results. They can view the same dataset from multiple perspectives by manipulating several display, sort, and filter options. Doing so allows them to see different patterns in the dataset. For example, they can apply a logarithmic transformation in order to create more scatter in a dense cluster of data points or they can apply filters in order to focus on a specific subset of data points. Originality/value SearchGraph is a creative solution to the problem of how to design interface tools for large‐scale repositories. It is particularly appropriate for the authors' target users, who are scientists and engineers. It extends the work of the first two authors on ActiveGraph, a read‐write digital library visualization tool.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".