ViSA: A Parametric Design Modeling Method to Enhance Visual Sensitivity Control and 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
The ability of parametric computer-aided design systems to generate models rapidly enables designers to explore the downstream impacts of changes to key design parameters. However, the typical modeling functions provided in the parametric systems can become insufficient when such exploration is needed for increasingly complex parametric design models. Main challenges for exploration that we observed are control and analysis of changes on the design model and in particular, when they are introduced continuously. The system interfaces and the human-visual perception system alleviate these challenges. In this study, we demonstrate ViSA, a Visual Sensitivity Analysis method that aims to make the effects of change within a parametric model controllable, measurable and apparent for designers. The approach aims to improve visually analyzing the sensitivity of a design model to planned parametric changes. The method proposes customizable control and visualization features in the model that are decoupled from each other at the design level, while providing interfaces between them through parametric associations. We present findings from our case studies in addition to the results of a user study demonstrating the applicability and limitations of the proposed method.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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