Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Detail‐in‐context lens techniques can be useful for exploring visualizations of data spaces that are too large or have too much detail to fit in regular displays. For example, by bending the space in the right way we can bring together details from two separate areas for easy comparison while roughly keeping the context that situates each area within the global space. While these techniques can be powerful tools, they also introduce distortions that need to be understood, and often the tools have to be disabled in order to have access to the undistorted data. We introduce the undistort lens, a complement to existing distortion‐based techniques that provides a local and separate presentation of the original geometry without affecting any distortion‐based lenses currently used in the presentation. The undistort lens is designed to allow interactive access to the underlying undistorted data within the context of the distorted space, and to enable a better understanding of the distortions. The paper describes the implementation of a generic back‐mapping mechanism that enables the implementation of undistort lenses for arbitrary distortion based techniques, including those presented in the lens literature. We also provide a series of use‐case scenarios that demonstrate the situations in which the technique can complement existing lenses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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.
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".