Understanding the effectiveness of adaptive guidance for narrative visualization
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
We study the effectiveness of adaptive guidance at helping users process textual documents with embedded visualizations, known as narrative visualizations. We do so by leveraging eye tracking to analyze in depth the effect that adaptations meant to guide the user's gaze to relevant parts of the visualizations has on users with different levels of visualization literacy. Results indicate that the adaptations succeed in guiding attention to salient components of the narrative visualizations, especially by generating more transitions between key components of the visualization (i.e., datapoints, labels and legend). We also show that the adaptation helps users with lower levels of visualization literacy to better map datapoints to the legend, which leads in part to improved comprehension of the visualization. These findings shed light on how adaptive guidance helps users with different levels of visualization literacy, informing the design of personalized narrative visualizations.
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