Exploiting analysis history to support collaborative data analysis
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
Coordination is critical in distributed collaborative analysis of multidimensional data. Collaborating analysts need to understand what each person has done and what avenues of analysis remain uninvestigated in order to effectively coordinate their efforts. Although visualization history has the potential to communicate such information, common history representations typically show sequential lists of past work, making it difficult to understand the analytic coverage of the data dimension space (i.e. which data dimensions have been investigated and in what combinations). This makes it difficult for collaborating analysts to plan their next steps, particularly when the number of dimensions is large and team members are distributed. We introduce the notion of representing past analysis history from a dimension coverage perspective to enable analysts to see which data dimensions have been explored in which combinations. Through two user studies, we investigated whether 1) a dimension oriented view improves understanding of past coverage information, and 2) the addition of dimension coverage information aids coordination. Our findings demonstrate that a representation of dimension coverage reduces the time required to identify and investigate unexplored regions and increases the accuracy of this understanding. In addition, it results in a larger overall coverage of the dimension space, one element of effective team coordination.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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