Visual and numerical representations of dynamic systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most natural systems are dynamic, involving a set of relationships among measurable quantities, where mathematical models describe how the quantities evolve over time. For example, water flow in the river and the number of fish in a lake both follow fixed mathematical rules. Thus, the challenge for the visual system is to integrate multiple sources of quantities over time to represent the overall changes in the system. Here we examine a dynamic system where an inflow tube is connected to a tank where objects enter. The tank is also connected to an outflow tube where objects leave. In Experiment 1, there were two conditions. In the visual condition, participants viewed objects flowing into and out of the tank in each trial, and estimated the net change of objects in the tank. In the numerical condition, participants viewed a chart showing the inflow rate of objects, a chart showing the outflow rate, and a chart showing the number of objects in the tank. Based on the charts, they estimated the net change of objects. There were three types of trials: depletion (inflow less than outflow), equilibrium (inflow = outflow), and replenishment (inflow greater than outflow). We found that estimation error of the net change was reliably lower in the visual condition than in the numerical condition. Estimation errors were greater in depletion and replenishment trials than in equilibrium trials. This pattern of results remained the same when participants could view only the inflow and outflow information (Experiment 2), or only the tank information (Experiment 3). The current findings suggest that visual representation is more veridical than the representation derived from only numerical information. The state of equilibrium produces a more accurate representation than the state of change. Finally, the visual system can form an efficient representation of the dynamic system based on partial information. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".