Evaluating Web-based Static, Animated, and Interactive Maps for Injury Prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public health planning can benefit from visual exploration and analysis of geospatial data. Maps and geo-visualization tools must be developed with the user-group in mind. User-needs assessment and usability testing are crucial elements in the iterative process of map design and implementation. This study presents the results of a usability test of static, animated and interactive maps of injury rates and socio-demographic determinants of injury by a sample of potential end-users in Toronto, Canada. The results of the user-testing suggest that different map types are useful for different purposes and for satisfying the varying skill level of the individual user. The static maps were deemed to be easy to use and versatile, while the animated maps could be made more useful if animation controls were provided. The split-screen concepts of the interactive maps was highlighted as particularly effective for map comparison. Overall, interactive maps were identified as the preferred map type for comparing patterns of injury and related socio-demographic risk factors. Information collected from the user-tests is being used to expand and refind the injury webmaps for Toronto, and could inform other public health-related geo-visualization projects.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".