MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048699628 · doi:10.11575/prism/38068

Health Visualizations at Home: Who Sees What Where

2018· article· en· W3048699628 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bon Adriel Aseniero, Anthony Tang, Sheelagh Carpendale

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Technology Futures
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a qualitative study pilot to gather requirements for integrating health visualizations at home. We focused on finding dynamics between (1) people: who the visualizations are made for, and others who will see them; (2) visualization: what visual representations people expect for their homes; and (3) location: where people expect to find the visualizations. We describe our study methodology and the results. We found hints of concepts for consideration such as (1) privacy can be derived from visualization style, (2) visualizations can be installed at high traffic locations but data sensitivity should be considered, and (3) location of related tools at home can influence where visualizations should be located.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207