Future Directions in Computer Graphics and Visualization: From CG&A's Editorial Board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With many new members joining the CG&A editorial board over the past year, and with a renewed commitment to not only document the state of the art in computer graphics research and applications but to anticipate and where possible foster future areas of scientific discourse and industrial practice, CG&A asked its editorial and advisory council members about where they see their fields of expertise going. The answers compiled here aren't meant to be all encompassing or deterministic when it comes to the opportunities computer graphics and interactive visualization hold for the future. Instead, the goal is to give a more in-depth introduction of members of the editorial board to the CG&A readership and encourage cross-disciplinary discourse toward approaching, complementing, or disputing the visions laid out in this compilation. Here's what the CG&A editorial and advisory council members had to say.
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 | 0.025 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.016 |
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".