Supporting Communication and Coordination in Collaborative Sensemaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When people work together to analyze a data set, they need to organize their findings, hypotheses, and evidence, share that information with their collaborators, and coordinate activities amongst team members. Sharing externalizations (recorded information such as notes) could increase awareness and assist with team communication and coordination. However, we currently know little about how to provide tool support for this sort of sharing. We explore how linked common work (LCW) can be employed within a `collaborative thinking space', to facilitate synchronous collaborative sensemaking activities in Visual Analytics (VA). Collaborative thinking spaces provide an environment for analysts to record, organize, share and connect externalizations. Our tool, CLIP, extends earlier thinking spaces by integrating LCW features that reveal relationships between collaborators' findings. We conducted a user study comparing CLIP to a baseline version without LCW. Results demonstrated that LCW significantly improved analytic outcomes at a collaborative intelligence task. Groups using CLIP were also able to more effectively coordinate their work, and held more discussion of their findings and hypotheses. LCW enabled them to maintain awareness of each other's activities and findings and link those findings to their own work, preventing disruptive oral awareness notifications.
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 | 0.019 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".