MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056824033 · doi:10.3138/jsp.46.3.05

Multiple Pie Charts: Unreadable, Inefficient, and Over-Used

2015· article· en· W2056824033 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.

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

VenueJournal of Scholarly Publishing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPie chartChartComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)StatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A pie chart is a common way of presenting simple statistics—for example, the amount of time devoted to teaching, researching, and administration by the faculty can be illustrated by dividing a circle (‘pie’) into three appropriately sized segments. There has been much discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of such pie charts for a long time, and it is not likely to end soon. 3D pie charts show the same statistics, but in three dimensions. Multiple pie charts can be found where the data for groups to be compared are presented in adjacent pies. Here we argue that, even if a simple pie chart may have some advantages, the same cannot be said for multiple pie charts. Multiple pie charts are difficult to analyze and interpret, especially when comparing adjacent pies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.136
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.136
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.014
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.323
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.083 · 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