MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138868843 · doi:10.1198/106186002317375631

A Brief History of the Mosaic Display

2002· article· en· W2138868843 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Friendly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMosaicComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)Artificial intelligenceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an illustrated history of the visual and conceptual ideas leading to the development of mosaic displays. We trace the origins of the use of rectangles and area to depict data quantities and their relations, of early forms of mosaic displays including subdivided bar-like charts and various cartograms, to the modern forms used in log-linear analysis and in space-filling tree maps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.014

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Graphical StatisticsSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207