MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137561086 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2008.127

EMDialog: Bringing Information Visualization into the Museum

2008· article· en· W2137561086 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationExhibitionComputer scienceInformation visualizationContext (archaeology)Presentation (obstetrics)Human–computer interactionWorld Wide WebVisual analyticsData visualizationGeovisualizationData scienceMultimediaVisual artsArtificial intelligenceArtArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital information displays are becoming more common in public spaces such as museums, galleries, and libraries. However, the public nature of these locations requires special considerations concerning the design of information visualization in terms of visual representations and interaction techniques. We discuss the potential for, and challenges of, information visualization in the museum context based on our practical experience with EMDialog, an interactive information presentation that was part of the Emily Carr exhibition at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary. EMDialog visualizes the diverse and multi-faceted discourse about this Canadian artist with the goal to both inform and provoke discussion. It provides a visual environment that allows for exploration of the interplay between two integrated visualizations, one for information access along temporal, and the other along contextual dimensions. We describe the results of an observational study we conducted at the museum that revealed the different ways visitors approached and interacted with EMDialog, as well as how they perceived this form of information presentation in the museum context. Our results include the need to present information in a manner sufficiently attractive to draw attention and the importance of rewarding passive observation as well as both short- and longer term information exploration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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