MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082046364 · doi:10.1109/beliv51497.2020.00016

Data-First Visualization Design Studies

2020· preprint· en· W3082046364 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Oppermann, Tamara Munzner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransferabilityProcess (computing)Data scienceVisualizationDesign processData visualizationAdaptation (eye)Data miningEngineeringMachine learningWork in processProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce the notion of a data-first design study which is triggered by the acquisition of real-world data instead of specific stakeholder analysis questions. We propose an adaptation of the design study methodology framework to provide practical guidance and to aid transferability to other data-first design processes. We discuss opportunities and risks by reflecting on two of our own data-first design studies. We review 64 previous design studies and identify 16 of them as edge cases with characteristics that may indicate a data-first design process in action.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.120
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1200.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.345
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.087 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207