MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281731830 · doi:10.21606/drs.2022.1082

Valuing the qualitative in design and data

2022· article· en· W4281731830 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Lockton

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of DRS · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTrack (disk drive)Qualitative researchData visualizationData scienceQualitative propertyContext (archaeology)InformaticsVisualizationHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DRS 2022 track ‘Valuing the Qualitative in Design and Data’ features eleven accepted papers on topics including visualisation and physicalisation of qualitative data, the use of materials in this context, practical applications in design and education, and applications in personal informatics. In this editorial, the track chairs introduce the track, and the reasoning behind it, together with a short introduction to the papers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.135
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.261
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1350.261
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.030
Scholarly communication0.0250.015
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0110.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of DRSSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207