MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805058177 · doi:10.1145/3205929.3205933

GaRSIVis

2018· article· en· W2805058177 on OpenAlexafffund
Jan Pilzer, Shareen Mahmud, Vanessa Putnam, Xinhong Liu, Tamara Munzner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPersonal Information Management and User Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitute for Computing, Information and Cognitive Systems
KeywordsComputer scienceGazeVisualizationData visualizationReading (process)Filter (signal processing)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceData modelingMachine learningData miningComputer visionDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gaze pattern data provides a promising opportunity to create a predictive model of self-interruption during reading that could support active interventions to keep a reader's attention at times when self-interruptions are predicted to occur. We present two systems designed to help analysts create and improve such a model. We present GaRSIVis, (Gaze Reading Self-Interruption Visualizer), that integrates a visualization front-end suitable for data cleansing and a prediction back-end that can be run repeatedly as the input data is iteratively improved. It allows analysts refining the predictive model to filter out unwanted parts of the gaze data that should not be used in the prediction. It relies on data gathered by GaRSILogger, which logs gaze data and activity associated with interruptions during on-screen reading. By integrating data cleansing and our prediction results in our visualization, we enable analysts using GaRSIVis to come up with a comprehensible way of understanding self-interruption from gaze related features.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.025

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 head0.476
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.032 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPersonal Information Management and User BehaviorFrench-language works237,207