MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157689946 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2010.149

eSeeTrack—Visualizing Sequential Fixation Patterns

2010· article· en· W2157689946 on OpenAlexaff
Hoi Ying Tsang, Melanie Tory, Charles Swindells

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVisualizationEye trackingGazeTimelineOutlierData visualizationArtificial intelligenceFixation (population genetics)Visual analyticsComputer visionData miningPattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce eSeeTrack, an eye-tracking visualization prototype that facilitates exploration and comparison of sequential gaze orderings in a static or a dynamic scene. It extends current eye-tracking data visualizations by extracting patterns of sequential gaze orderings, displaying these patterns in a way that does not depend on the number of fixations on a scene, and enabling users to compare patterns from two or more sets of eye-gaze data. Extracting such patterns was very difficult with previous visualization techniques. eSeeTrack combines a timeline and a tree-structured visual representation to embody three aspects of eye-tracking data that users are interested in: duration, frequency and orderings of fixations. We demonstrate the usefulness of eSeeTrack via two case studies on surgical simulation and retail store chain data. We found that eSeeTrack allows ordering of fixations to be rapidly queried, explored and compared. Furthermore, our tool provides an effective and efficient mechanism to determine pattern outliers. This approach can be effective for behavior analysis in a variety of domains that are described at the end of this paper.

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)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations65
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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