Gaze-Driven Adaptive Interventions for Magazine-Style Narrative Visualizations
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
In this article, we investigate the value of gaze-driven adaptive interventions to support the processing of textual documents with embedded visualizations, i.e., Magazine Style Narrative Visualizations (MSNVs). These interventions are provided dynamically by highlighting relevant data points in the visualization when the user reads related sentences in the MSNV text, as detected by an eye-tracker. We conducted a user study during which participants read a set of MSNVs with our interventions, and compared their performance and experience with participants who received no interventions. Our work extends previous findings by showing that dynamic, gaze-driven interventions can be delivered based on reading behaviors in MSNVs, a widespread form of documents that have never been considered for gaze-driven adaptation so far. Next, we found that the interventions significantly improved the performance of users with low levels of visualization literacy, i.e., those users who need help the most due to their lower ability to process and understand data visualizations. However, high literacy users were not impacted by the interventions, providing initial evidence that gaze-driven interventions can be further improved by personalizing them to the levels of visualization literacy of their users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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