Using perceptual syntax to enhance semantic content in diagrams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagrams are essential in documenting large information systems. They capture, communicate, and leverage knowledge indispensable for solving problems and act as cognitive externalizations (intertwining internal and external processes to extract information from the external world to enhance thought). A diagram provides a mapping from the problem domain to the visual representation by supporting cognitive processes that involve perceptual pattern finding and cognitive symbolic operations. However, not all mappings are equal, and for effectiveness we must embed a diagram's representation with characteristics, which lets users easily perceive meaningful patterns. Consequently, a diagram's effectiveness depends to some extent on how well we construct it as an input to our visual system. In our research, we focus on a class of diagrams commonly referred to as graphs or node-link diagrams. Nodes representing entities, objects, or processes, and links or edges representing relationships between the nodes characterize them. Their most common form is outline circles or boxes denoting nodes and lines of different types representing links between the nodes. Entity-relationship diagrams, software structure diagrams, and data-flow models are examples of node-link diagrams used to model the structure of processes, software, or data.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".