MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106669190 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2006.177

Smashing Peacocks Further: Drawing Quasi-Trees from Biconnected Components

2006· article· en· W2106669190 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Archambault, Tamara Munzner, David Auber

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBiconnected graphTree (set theory)GraphTheoretical computer scienceNode (physics)Block graphCombinatoricsMathematicsLine graphPathwidth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quasi-trees, namely graphs with tree-like structure, appear in many application domains, including bioinformatics and computer networks. Our new SPF approach exploits the structure of these graphs with a two-level approach to drawing, where the graph is decomposed into a tree of biconnected components. The low-level biconnected components are drawn with a force-directed approach that uses a spanning tree skeleton as a starting point for the layout. The higher-level structure of the graph is a true tree with meta-nodes of variable size that contain each biconnected component. That tree is drawn with a new area-aware variant of a tree drawing algorithm that handles high-degree nodes gracefully, at the cost of allowing edge-node overlaps. SPF performs an order of magnitude faster than the best previous approaches, while producing drawings of commensurate or improved quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207