Building and Applying a Human Cognition Model for Visual Analytics
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
It is well known that visual analytics addresses the difficulty of evaluating and processing large quantities of information. Less often discussed are the increasingly complex analytic and reasoning processes that must be applied in order to accomplish that goal. Success of the visual analytics approach will require us to develop new visualization models that predict how computational processes might facilitate human insight and guide the flow of human reasoning. In this paper, we seek to advance visualization methods by proposing a framework for human ‘higher cognition’ that extends more familiar perceptual models. Based on this approach, we suggest guidelines for the development of visual interfaces that better integrate complementary capabilities of humans and computers. Although many of these recommendations are novel, some can be found in existing visual analytics applications. In the latter case, much of the value of our contribution lies in the deeper rationale that the model provides for those principles. Lastly, we assess these visual analytics guidelines through the evaluation of several visualization examples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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