Designing for Ambiguity: Visual Analytics in Avalanche Forecasting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambiguity, an information state where multiple interpretations are plausible, is a common challenge in visual analytics (VA) systems. We discuss lessons learned from a case study designing VA tools for Canadian avalanche forecasters. Avalanche forecasting is a complex and collaborative risk-based decision-making and analysis domain, demanding experience and knowledge-based interpretation of human reported and uncertain data. Differences in reporting practices, organizational contexts, and the particularities of individual reports result in a variety of potential interpretations that have to be negotiated as part of the forecaster's sensemaking processes. We describe our preliminary research using glyphs to support sensemaking under ambiguity. Ambiguity is not unique to public avalanche forecasting. There are many other domains where the way data are measured and reported vary in ways not accounted explicitly in the data and require analysts to negotiate multiple potential meanings. We argue that ambiguity is under-served by visualization research and would benefit from more explicit VA support.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".