MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TreeMatrix: A Hybrid Visualization of Compound Graphs

2012· article· en· W2142453530 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Graphics Forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationGraph drawingAdjacency matrixCluster analysisAdjacency listTheoretical computer scienceData visualizationGraphInformation visualizationData miningAlgorithmArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a hybrid visualization technique for compound graphs (i.e. networks with a hierarchical clustering defined on the nodes) that combines the use of adjacency matrices, node‐link and arc diagrams to show the graph, and also combines the use of nested inclusion and icicle diagrams to show the hierarchical clustering. The graph visualized with our technique may have edges that are weighted and/or directed. We first explore the design space of visualizations of compound graphs and present a taxonomy of hybrid visualization techniques. We then present our prototype, which allows clusters (i.e. subtrees) of nodes to be grouped into matrices or split apart using a radial menu. We also demonstrate how our prototype can be used in the software engineering domain, and compare it to the commercial matrix‐based visualization tool Lattix using a qualitative user study.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.741

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.266 · 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