Revisiting Sensemaking: The case of the Digital Decision Network Application (DigitalDNA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="3">During this age of data proliferation, heavy reliance is placed on data visualisation to support users in making sense of vast quantities of information. Informational Dashboards have become the must have accoutrement for Higher Education institutions with various stakeholders jostling for development priority. Due to the time pressure and user demands, the focus of development process is often on designing for each stakeholder and the visual and navigational aspects. Dashboards are designed to make data visually appealing and easy to relate and understand; unfortunately this may mask data issues and create an impression of rigour where it is not justified. This article proposes that the underlying logic behind current dashboard development is limited in the flexibility, scalability, and responsiveness required in the demanding landscape of Big Data and Analytics and explores an alternative approach to data visualisation and sense making. It suggests that the first step required to address these issues is the development of an enriched database which integrates key indicators from various data sources. The database is designed for problem exploration allowing users freedom in navigating between various data-levels, which can then be overlaid with any user interface for dashboard generation for a multitude of stakeholders. Dashboards merely become tools providing users and indication of types of data available for exploration. A Design Research approach is shown, along with a case study to illustrate the benefits, showcasing various views developed for diverse stakeholders employing this approach, specifically the the Digital Decision Network Application (Digital<em>DNA</em>) employed at Unisa.</p>
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".