MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063763232 · doi:10.1177/154193120304701314

Judgments of Proportion with Graphs: Object-Based Advantages

2003· article· en· W2063763232 on OpenAlexaff
Olivier St-Cyr, Justin G. Hollands

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBar (unit)Object (grammar)Bar chartGraphError barMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatisticsGeologyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated whether a stacked bar's vertical arrangement or single-object properties underlie its accuracy for proportion judgments. We hypothesized that observers would be less accurate when stacked bars were separated than when they formed a single object, according to the object-based theory of attention (Duncan, 1984). Thirty participants judged proportions with three different graph types: bars, stacked bars, and staggered stacked bars. Stacked bars produced smaller error than staggered stacked bars, while bars produced the greatest error. The results show an object-based advantage for stacked bars, but a vertical arrangement advantage for staggered stacked bars over bars was also evident.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207