Shall we play? – Extending the Visual Analytics Design Space through Gameful Design Concepts
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
Many interactive machine learning workflows in the context of visual analytics encompass the stages of exploration, verification, and knowledge communication. Within these stages, users perform various types of actions based on different human needs. In this position paper, we postulate expanding this workflow by introducing gameful design elements. These can increase a user’s motivation to take actions, to improve a model’s quality, or to exchange insights with others. By combining concepts from visual analytics, human psychology, and gamification, we derive a model for augmenting the visual analytics processes with game mechanics. We argue for automatically learning a parametrization of these game mechanics based on a continuous evaluation of the users’ actions and analysis results. To demonstrate our proposed conceptual model, we illustrate how three existing visual analytics techniques could benefit from incorporating tailored game dynamics. Lastly, we discuss open challenges and point out potential implications for future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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