MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106356612 · doi:10.1109/ipcc.2009.5208725

Principles for creating good information representation

2009· article· en· W2106356612 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kouichi Abe

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultimedia Communication and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceFocus (optics)PaceThe InternetFidelityMeaning (existential)Information retrievalWorld Wide WebHuman–computer interactionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I propose principles for good representation of information applicable to six categories of communication: speeches, written texts, presentations, Web pages, movies/videos, and source programs. For each of these categories, many tips have been proposed for creating good information representation. The meaning of good information representation can be interpreted in two ways: as attractive or impressive, and effective in conveying facts and opinions. Although these two ways cannot be said to be independent of each other, I focus here only the latter. The need to establish explicit principles for good information representation is urgent, because information must be transmitted accurately (without loss of fidelity). Bad information representation is proliferating at a rapid pace because of the Internet. information representation

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultimedia Communication and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207