MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059883798 · doi:10.1080/15427951.2011.604289

NAViGaTOR: Large Scalable and Interactive Navigation and Analysis of Large Graphs

2011· article· en· W2059883798 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Amira Djebbari, Muhammad Ali, David Otasek, Max Kotlyar, Kristen Fortney, Serene Wong, Anthony Hrvojic, Igor Jurišica

Bibliographic record

VenueInternet Mathematics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicComplex Network Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVisualizationComputer scienceWorkflowGraph drawingScalabilityGraphical user interfaceData visualizationGraph LayoutVariety (cybernetics)Memory footprintInteractive visualizationData miningDatabaseProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Network visualization tools offer features enabling a variety of analyses to satisfy diverse requirements. Considering complexity and diversity of data and tasks, there is no single best layout, no single best file format or visualization tool: one size does not fit all. One way to cope with these dynamics is to support multiple scenarios and workflows. NAViGaTOR (Network Analysis, Visualization & Graphing TORonto) offers a complete system to manage diverse workflows from one application. It allows users to manipulate large graphs interactively using an innovative graphical user interface (GUI) and through fast layout algorithms with a small memory footprint. NAViGaTOR facilitates integrative network analysis by supporting not only visualization but also visual data mining.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.011

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternet MathematicsSame topicComplex Network Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207