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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tutorials and sample workflows for complicated, feature-rich software packages are widely available online. As a result users must differentiate between workflows to choose the most suitable one for their task. We present Delta, an interactive workflow visualization and comparison tool that helps users identify the tradeoffs between workflows. We conducted an initial study to identify the set of attributes users attend to when comparing workflows, finding that they consider result quality, their knowledge of commands, and the efficiency of the workflow. We then designed Delta to surface these attributes at three granularities: a high-level, clustered view; an intermediate-level list view that contains workflow summaries; and a low-level detail view that allows users to compare two individual workflows. Finally, we conducted an evaluation of Delta on a small corpus of 30 workflows and found that the intermediate list view provided the best information density. We conclude with thoughts on how such a workflow comparison system could be scaled up to larger corpora in the future.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
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 it