MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292923994 · doi:10.14516/fde.2016.014.020.015

Citizen Engagement through Tangible Data Representation

2016· article· es· W2292923994 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Jofré, Steve Szigeti, Sara Diamond

Bibliographic record

VenueForo de Educación · 2016
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and Design
FundersGraduate School, University of Maryland
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionVisualizationEmbodied cognitionSet (abstract data type)PremiseData visualizationData scienceConstruct (python library)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We begin with the premise that data literacy is a fundamental facet of citizen education in this information age, and that an engaged citizenry in a democracy not only requires access to data, but also the capacity to manipulate and examine the data from multiple perspectives. The visualization of data elucidates trends and patterns in the phenomena that the data represents, and opens accessibility to understanding complicated human and natural processes represented by data sets. Research indicates that interacting with a visualization amplifies cognition and analysis. A single visualization may show only one facet of the data. To examine the data from multiple perspectives, engaged citizens need to be able to construct their own visualizations from a data set. Many tools for data visualization have responded to this need, allowing non-data experts to manipulate and gain insights into their data, but most of these tools are restricted to the computer screen, keyboard, and mouse. Cognition and analysis may be strengthened even more through embodied interaction with data. We present here the rationale for the design of a tool that allows users to probe a data set, through interactions with graspable (tangible) three-dimensional objects, rather than through a keyboard and mouse interaction. We argue that the use of tangibles facilitates understanding abstract concepts, and facilitates many concrete learning scenarios. Another advantage of using tangibles over screen-based tools is that they foster collaboration, which can promote a productive working and learning environment. We speculate that collaborative data exploration can be a productive educational activity for citizens in their communities and in the classroom, and we suggest our tool as a means to do this. How to reference this article Jofre, A., Szigeti, S., & Diamond, A. (2016). Citizen Engagement through Tangible Data Representation . Foro de Educación , 14(20), 305-325. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14516/fde.2016.014.020.015

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0030.020
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForo de EducaciónSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207