Lark: Coordinating Co-located Collaboration with Information Visualization
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
Large multi-touch displays are expanding the possibilities of multiple-coordinated views by allowing multiple people to interact with data in concert or independently. We present Lark, a system that facilitates the coordination of interactions with information visualizations on shared digital workspaces. We focus on supporting this coordination according to four main criteria: scoped interaction, temporal flexibility, spatial flexibility, and changing collaboration styles. These are achieved by integrating a representation of the information visualization pipeline into the shared workspace, thus explicitly indicating coordination points on data, representation, presentation, and view levels. This integrated meta-visualization supports both the awareness of how views are linked and the freedom to work in concert or independently. Lark incorporates these four main criteria into a coherent visualization collaboration interaction environment by providing direct visual and algorithmic support for the coordination of data analysis actions over shared large displays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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