PrAVA: Preprocessing profiling approach for visual analytics
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
To accommodate the demands of a data-driven society, we have expanded our ability to collect and store data, develop sophisticated algorithms, and generate elaborated visual representations of the data analysis process outcomes. However, data preprocessing, as the activity of transforming the raw data into an appropriate format for subsequent analysis, is still a challenging part of this process. Although we can find studies that address the use of visualization techniques to support the activities in the scope of preprocessing, the current Visual Analytics processes do not consider preprocessing an equally important phase in their processes. Hence, with this paper, we aim to contribute to the discussion of how we can incorporate the preprocessing as a prominent phase in the Visual Analytics process and promote better alternatives to assist the data analysts during the preprocessing activities. To achieve that, we are introducing the Preprocessing Profiling Approach for Visual Analytics (PrAVA), a conceptual Visual Analytics process that includes Preprocessing Profiling as a new phase. It also contemplates a set of guidelines to be considered by new solutions adopting PrAVA. Moreover, we analyze its applicability through use case scenarios that show resourceful methods for data understanding and evaluation of the preprocessing impacts. As a final contribution, we indicate a list of research opportunities in the scope of preprocessing combined with visualization and Visual Analytics to stimulate a shift to visual preprocessing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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