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
We introduce embedded data representations, the use of visual and physical representations of data that are deeply integrated with the physical spaces, objects, and entities to which the data refers. Technologies like lightweight wireless displays, mixed reality hardware, and autonomous vehicles are making it increasingly easier to display data in-context. While researchers and artists have already begun to create embedded data representations, the benefits, trade-offs, and even the language necessary to describe and compare these approaches remain unexplored. In this paper, we formalize the notion of physical data referents - the real-world entities and spaces to which data corresponds - and examine the relationship between referents and the visual and physical representations of their data. We differentiate situated representations, which display data in proximity to data referents, and embedded representations, which display data so that it spatially coincides with data referents. Drawing on examples from visualization, ubiquitous computing, and art, we explore the role of spatial indirection, scale, and interaction for embedded representations. We also examine the tradeoffs between non-situated, situated, and embedded data displays, including both visualizations and physicalizations. Based on our observations, we identify a variety of design challenges for embedded data representation, and suggest opportunities for future research and applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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