Intent-Gesture Relationships for Collaborative Information Visualization
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
In this study we look at the relationship between gestures and intents when pairs of participants are collaborating around a large display with a graph. We aimed to find out what gestures paired with which intents, which gestures participants would find suitable for various intents, and how our findings could influence designing interactions with graphs being used for collaborative analysis work. We studied 8 pairs of participants and found 10 frequent gestures and 11 frequent intents. An exploration of the relationship between these gestures and intents found 15 frequent co-occurrences. We analyzed these findings and then proceeded to make design suggestions for enabling co-located collaboration interaction using large multi-touch displays. Throughout, we used a theory of technical intersubjectivity to guide our research. In particular, this helped us to position large multi-touch displays as enablers of intersubjective interactions, which facilitated our design process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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