A Qualitative Evaluation of MapTime, A Program For Exploring Spatiotemporal Point Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is twofold: (1) to provide a user evaluation of MapTime, a software package for exploring spatiotemporal data associated with point locations, and (2) to examine some cognitive issues associated with the display of a dynamic geographic phenomenon - the change in population for cities over time. The methodology consists of a combination of individual interviews and focus groups conducted for three distinct groups of participants: novices, geography students, and domain experts. Some of the key findings are (1) that people do not naturally think of time lines in association with time (clocks and calendars are more common), which raises questions about the use of a linear time line for controlling animations; (2) that pictographic symbols tend to be preferred over geometric symbols for static maps, but pictographic symbols are apt to be too complex for animated maps; (3) that animations, small multiples, and change maps all have important roles to play in examining spatiotemporal data - animations for examining general trends, small multiples for comparing arbitrary time periods, and change maps for explicitly depicting change; (4) that automatic animations are useful for examining trends in pattern, while user-controlled animations are useful for focusing on details within a pattern; and (5) that individual interviews are particularly useful in obtaining users' reactions to software (as opposed to having them learn the software on their own) because the interviewer can steer the interview based on the user's responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it