A Taxonomy of Property Measures to Unify Active Learning and Human-centered Approaches to Data Labeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategies for selecting the next data instance to label, in service of generating labeled data for machine learning, have been considered separately in the machine learning literature on active learning and in the visual analytics literature on human-centered approaches. We propose a unified design space for instance selection strategies to support detailed and fine-grained analysis covering both of these perspectives. We identify a concise set of 15 properties, namely measureable characteristics of datasets or of machine learning models applied to them, that cover most of the strategies in these literatures. To quantify these properties, we introduce Property Measures (PM) as fine-grained building blocks that can be used to formalize instance selection strategies. In addition, we present a taxonomy of PMs to support the description, evaluation, and generation of PMs across four dimensions: machine learning (ML) Model Output , Instance Relations , Measure Functionality , and Measure Valence . We also create computational infrastructure to support qualitative visual data analysis: a visual analytics explainer for PMs built around an implementation of PMs using cascades of eight atomic functions. It supports eight analysis tasks, covering the analysis of datasets and ML models using visual comparison within and between PMs and groups of PMs, and over time during the interactive labeling process. We iteratively refined the PM taxonomy, the explainer, and the task abstraction in parallel with each other during a two-year formative process, and show evidence of their utility through a summative evaluation with the same infrastructure. This research builds a formal baseline for the better understanding of the commonalities and differences of instance selection strategies, which can serve as the stepping stone for the synthesis of novel strategies in future work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".