Abstractions for Visualizing Preferences in Group Decisions
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
Group decision making occurs when individuals collectively choose from a set of alternatives based on individual preferences. In these ubiquitous situations, it can be helpful for decision makers to visually model and compare stakeholder preferences in order to better understand others' points of view and reach consensus. Although a number of collaboration support tools allow preference inspection in some form, they are rarely based on a comprehensive understanding of the needs of group decision makers. The goal of our work is to study these demands, develop abstractions to model them, and create a framework to inform the design and assessment of existing and future tools. First, guided by decision analysis theory, we examine a diverse set of group decision making scenarios, characterizing variations in problem formulation, analysis goals, and situational features. Second, we amalgamate these findings into data and task abstractions that can be used to relate specific scenarios to the language of visualization. Finally, we use this framework to assess existing preference visualization tools in order to shed light on areas for future work in supporting group decision making.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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