MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214771745 · doi:10.1007/978-1-4842-8051-5_14

Why Storytelling?

2022· book-chapter· en· W4214771745 on OpenAlexaff
Maris Sekar

Bibliographic record

VenueApress eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bible College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStorytellingCraftCover (algebra)AuditComputer scienceNarrativeVisual artsArtEngineeringLiteratureAccountingBusinessMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter builds on the previous chapter by focusing on why data storytelling works. We will look at a practical IT Audit example of how storytelling can be used to enhance insight generation. We will also cover the general guidelines of good storytelling. Finally, a summary of what to do to craft good data stories as well as what not to do when creating them is listed for reference.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.021
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.015

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApress eBooksSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207