Seeking Patterns of Visual Pattern Discovery for Knowledge Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Currently, the methodological and technical developments in visual analytics, as well as the existing theories, are not sufficiently grounded by empirical studies that can provide an understanding of the processes of visual data analysis, analytical reasoning and derivation of new knowledge by humans. We conducted an exploratory empirical study in which participants analysed complex and data‐rich visualisations by detecting salient visual patterns, translating them into conceptual information structures and reasoning about those structures to construct an overall understanding of the analysis subject. Eye tracking and voice recording were used to capture this process. We analysed how the data we had collected match several existing theoretical models intended to describe visualisation‐supported reasoning, knowledge building, decision making or use and development of mental models. We found that none of these theoretical models alone is sufficient for describing the processes of visual analysis and knowledge generation that we observed in our experiments, whereas a combination of three particular models could be apposite. We also pondered whether empirical studies like ours can be used to derive implications and recommendations for possible ways to support users of visual analytics systems. Our approaches to designing and conducting the experiments and analysing the empirical data were appropriate to the goals of the study and can be recommended for use in other empirical studies in visual analytics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".