MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734255825 · doi:10.1075/idj.23.1.07thu

Subjectivity in personal storytelling with visualization

2017· article· en· W2734255825 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Design Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingSubjectivityNarrativeCraftVisualizationPerspective (graphical)Computer sciencePersonal narrativeEyewearVisual artsArtArtificial intelligenceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we explore visualization for personal storytelling and investigate techniques for communicating subjective experiences in personal visual narratives. Personal stories are often subjective and storytellers omit, make up, or embellish details to craft engaging stories or to communicate a perspective. As growing personal data collections allow individuals to leverage visualizations, we explore how personal visual narratives can express subjectivity. From an analysis of personal visualizations created by data enthusiasts, designers and artists, we collect techniques for deliberately expressing subjectivity during data collection, processing, visual encoding, and presentation. Our results prompt a discussion about the role and potential of subjectivity in personal visual storytelling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.564
GPT teacher head0.601
Teacher spread0.037 · 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