MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157525828 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.137

Automatic Layout of Structured Hierarchical Reports

2013· article· en· W2157525828 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTable (database)TweakingReadabilityColumn (typography)Information retrievalField (mathematics)SoftwareData miningDatabaseComputer graphics (images)Programming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Domain-specific database applications tend to contain a sizable number of table-, form-, and report-style views that must each be designed and maintained by a software developer. A significant part of this job is the necessary tweaking of low-level presentation details such as label placements, text field dimensions, list or table styles, and so on. In this paper, we present a horizontally constrained layout management algorithm that automates the display of structured hierarchical data using the traditional visual idioms of hand-designed database UIs: tables, multi-column forms, and outline-style indented lists. We compare our system with pure outline and nested table layouts with respect to space efficiency and readability, the latter with an online user study on 27 subjects. Our layouts are 3.9 and 1.6 times more compact on average than outline layouts and horizontally unconstrained table layouts, respectively, and are as readable as table layouts even for large datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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