MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025019158 · doi:10.3138/carto.46.4.252

Toward Appropriate Representations of Quantitative Data in Virtual Environments

2011· article· en· W2025019158 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityNorthwestern University
KeywordsSymbol (formal)Computer scienceTask (project management)Value (mathematics)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Displays of quantitative data within three-dimensional (3D) virtual environments are quickly created with today's technological options, but we know little about the appropriateness of such representations. Based on two-dimensional (2D) cartographic knowledge and popular symbolization usage, six potentially appropriate proportional symbols for the display of quantitative data in virtual environments are experimentally tested: 2D bars, 3D bars, and 2D circles, with and without reference frames indicating the largest possible value. The results show that 2D bars are most efficient and effective, as evaluated through two elementary tasks (indicating the larger symbol and comparing symbol sizes); 3D bars are less and 2D circles least efficient and effective. The use of reference frames improves the effectiveness but not the efficiency of task completion.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.271 · 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