MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895515925 · doi:10.3138/cart.53.3.2017-0021

Scaling the Interactive Dot Map

2018· article· en· W2895515925 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteractivityZoomVisualizationComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Interactive visualizationCategorical variableInformation visualizationData scienceData visualizationGeovisualizationHuman–computer interactionCartographyWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceGeographyMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dot maps are effective for cartographic visualization of categorical data. Recent advances in Web mapping technology have facilitated the development of interactive dot maps, in which users can pan and zoom to view data distributions for different areas. This interactivity, however, introduces multiple cartographic challenges, as design decisions that are appropriate at large scales can lead to clutter and illegibility at small scales. This article considers these challenges in the context of an applied example – an interactive dot map of educational attainment in the United States. It covers the methodology of the map’s creation as well as how it addresses the cartographic challenges of interactive dot mapping.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.293 · 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