Q4EDA: A Novel Strategy for Textual Information Retrieval Based on User Interactions with Visual Representations of Time Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowing how to construct text-based Search Queries (SQs) for use in Search Engines (SEs) such as Google or Wikipedia has become a fundamental skill. Though much data are available through such SEs, most structured datasets live outside their scope. Visualization tools aid in this limitation, but no such tools come close to the sheer amount of information available through general-purpose SEs. To fill this gap, this paper presents Q4EDA, a novel framework that converts users’ visual selection queries executed on top of time series visual representations, providing valid and stable SQs to be used in general-purpose SEs and suggestions of related information. The usefulness of Q4EDA is presented and validated by users through an application linking a Gapminder’s line-chart replica with a SE populated with Wikipedia documents, showing how Q4EDA supports and enhances exploratory analysis of United Nations world indicators. Despite some limitations, Q4EDA is unique in its proposal and represents a real advance towards providing solutions for querying textual information based on user interactions with visual representations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".