Automating the Intentional Encoding of Human-Designable Markers
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work established that it is possible for human artists to encode information into hand-drawn markers, but it is difficult to do when simultaneously maintaining aesthetic quality. We present two methods for relieving the mental burden associated with encoding, while allowing an artist to draw as freely as possible. A 'Helper Overlay' guides the artist with real-time feedback indicating where visual features should be added or removed, and an 'Autocomplete Tool' directly adds necessary features to the drawing for the artist to touch up. Both methods are enabled by a two-part algorithm that uses a tree-search for finding 'major' changes and a dynamic programming method for finding the minimum number of 'minor' changes. A 24-person study demonstrates that a majority of participants prefer both tools over previous methods of manual encoding, with the Helper Overlay being the more popular of the two.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it