Visualization in the preprocessing phase: Getting insights from enterprise professionals
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
The current information age has increasingly required organizations to become data-driven. However, analyzing and managing raw data is still a challenging part of the data mining process. Even though we can find interview studies proposing design implications or recommendations for future visualization solutions in the data mining scope, they cover the entire workflow and do not fully focus on the challenges during the preprocessing phase and on how visualization can support it. Moreover, they do not organize a final list of insights consolidating the findings of other related studies. Hence, to better understand the current practice of enterprise professionals in data mining workflows, in particular, during the preprocessing phase, and how visualization supports this process, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 data analysts. The discussion about the challenges and opportunities based on the responses of the interviewees resulted in a list of 10 insights. This list was compared with the closest related works, improving the reliability of our findings and providing background, as a consolidated set of requirements, for future visualization research articles applied to visual data exploration in data mining. Furthermore, we provide greater details on the profile of the data analysts, the main challenges they face, and the opportunities that arise while they are engaged in data mining projects in diverse organizational areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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