MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106330775 · doi:10.1145/1377966.1377975

Qualitative analysis of visualization

2008· article· en· W2106330775 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationData visualizationField (mathematics)Qualitative analysisComputer scienceQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Complement (music)Qualitative researchData scienceQualitative propertyHuman–computer interactionManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted an ethnographic field study examining the ways in which building design teams used visual representations of data to coordinate their work. Here we describe our experience with this field study approach, including both quantitative and qualitative analysis of field study data. Conducting a field study enabled us to effectively examine real work practice of a diverse team of experts, which would have been nearly impossible in a laboratory study. We also found that structured qualitative analysis methods provided deeper insight into our results than our initial quantitative approach. Our experience suggests that field studies and qualitative analysis could have substantial benefit in visualization and could nicely complement existing quantitative laboratory studies.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207