Building and applying a human cognition model for visual analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that visual analytics addresses the difficulty of evaluating and processing large quantities of information. Less often discussed are the increasingly complex analytic and reasoning processes that must be applied in order to accomplish that goal. Success of the visual analytics approach will require us to develop new visualization models that predict how computational processes might facilitate human insight and guide the flow of human reasoning. In this paper, we seek to advance visualization methods by proposing a framework for human “higher cognition ” that extends more familiar perceptual models. Based on this approach, we suggest guidelines for the development of visual interfaces that better integrate complementary capabilities of humans and computers. While many of these recommendations are novel, some can be found in existing visual analytics applications. In the latter case, much of the value of our contribution lies in the deeper rationale that the model provides for those principles. We then assess these visual analytics guidelines through the evaluation of several visualization examples. Lastly, we discuss steps that can be taken towards a predictive human cognition model.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".