MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155901243 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2010.60

Tugging Graphs Faster: Efficiently Modifying Path-Preserving Hierarchies for Browsing Paths

2010· article· en· W2155901243 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Archambault, Tamara Munzner, David Auber

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA)
KeywordsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceGraphLattice graphLine graphVoltage graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many graph visualization systems use graph hierarchies to organize a large input graph into logical components. These approaches detect features globally in the data and place these features inside levels of a hierarchy. However, this feature detection is a global process and does not consider nodes of the graph near a feature of interest. TugGraph is a system for exploring paths and proximity around nodes and subgraphs in a graph. The approach modifies a pre-existing hierarchy in order to see how a node or subgraph of interest extends out into the larger graph. It is guaranteed to create path-preserving hierarchies, so that the abstraction shown is meaningful with respect to the underlying structure of the graph. The system works well on graphs of hundreds of thousands of nodes and millions of edges. TugGraph is able to present views of this proximal information in the context of the entire graph in seconds, and does not require a layout of the full graph as input.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.286
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer GraphicsSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207