Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examine “input visualizations”, visual representations that are designed to collect (and represent) new data rather than encode pre-existing datasets. Information visualization is commonly used to reveal insights and stories within existing data. As a result, most contemporary visualization approaches assume existing datasets or data structures as the starting point for design, through which that data will be mapped to visual encodings to produce final visualizations. Meanwhile, the implications of visualizations as inputs and as data sources have received extremely little attention—despite the existence of visual and physical examples stretching back centuries—and the benefits, trades-offs, design patterns, and even the language necessary to describe them remain unexplored. In this paper we argue for the deeper examination of input visualizations, highlighting a set of recent examples and introducing vocabulary for characterizing them. Finally, we present a series of provocations which examine some of the challenges posed by input visualizations and suggest opportunities for better understanding this type of visual representations and their potential.
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 | 0.014 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".