MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293247395 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/eypgm

Scoping the Future of Visualization Literacy: A Review

2022· review· en· W4293247395 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisualizationLiteracyDiversity (politics)Interpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceInformation visualizationData visualizationVisual literacyWork (physics)Data scienceHuman–computer interactionPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogySociologyEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Access to information is increasing rapidly, and data visualizations are becoming increasingly common as a way to communicate summaries of large datasets, especially in media designed for the general public. Accompanying this rise in visualization is a need for visualization literacy. In this work we survey the current body of research on visualization literacy to find current research themes and guide future work. We found three themes of visualization literacy: interpretation, construction, and believability. Construction and believability are not traditionally discussed in visualization literacy research. We analyzed participant pools for visualization literacy user studies and found them to be lacking in diversity in gender and sex, age, education level, and recruitment country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.360 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207