MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225641568 · doi:10.32920/16896745.v1

Visualization of Web Spaces: State of the Art and Future Directions

2021· preprint· en· W4225641568 on OpenAlexaff
Ozgur Turetken, Ramesh Sharda

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorld Wide WebComputer scienceWeb modelingWeb navigationWeb intelligenceSocial Semantic WebData WebWeb standardsCyberspaceWeb pageInformation retrievalData scienceSemantic WebThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The World Wide Web is a dominant global communication medium and knowledge repository. It is used by a great number of people with a variety of computer skills hence its usability is critical. As with many large information collections, the challenge with web usability is understanding the structure of a collection of information objects (web pages) to find relevant ones for satisfying a specific information need. Web sites are organized in a hyperlinked structure that somewhat addresses this challenge. However, this “connectedness” also causes the now well-known “lost in cyberspace” phenomenon where one may get confused within the complex organization of a web site. Meanwhile, information exploration on the web is not limited to browsing a web site. The problem of finding relevant information applies to a collection of pages that come from various web sites as in the case of the results of a “less than perfectly constructed” search query. Information visualization has been proposed as a way to cope with these problems by taking advantage of people’s innate perceptual skills to support their cognitive skills. Many paradigms have been proposed for the visual presentation of web spaces (i.e. structured or unstructured collection of web pages). This study surveys these paradigms to provide a map of where the research in this field is, and what directions future research and practice can take. For this, we introduce a classification scheme to help in the systematic understanding of web visualization and for providing a framework for the development of future visualizations.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.022
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207