Spatialization Design: Comparing Points and Landscapes
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
Spatializations represent non-spatial data using a spatial layout similar to a map. We present an experiment comparing different visual representations of spatialized data, to determine which representations are best for a non-trivial search and point estimation task. Primarily, we compare point-based displays to 2D and 3D information landscapes. We also compare a colour (hue) scale to a grey (lightness) scale. For the task we studied, point-based spatializations were far superior to landscapes, and 2D landscapes were superior to 3D landscapes. Little or no benefit was found for redundantly encoding data using colour or greyscale combined with landscape height. 3D landscapes with no colour scale (height-only) were particularly slow and inaccurate. A colour scale was found to be better than a greyscale for all display types, but a greyscale was helpful compared to height-only. These results suggest that point-based spatializations should be chosen over landscape representations, at least for tasks involving only point data itself rather than derived information about the data space.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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