MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296954347 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/kdws9

Embracing Disciplinary Diversity in Visualization

2022· preprint· en· W4296954347 on OpenAlexaff
Tatiana Losev, Justin Raynor, Sheelagh Carpendale, Melanie Tory

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicData Visualization and Analytics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisciplineVisualizationDiversity (politics)StorytellingData scienceData visualizationComputer scienceCitizen journalismEngineering ethicsSociologyWorld Wide WebNarrativeEngineeringSocial scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visualization is inherently diverse and is employed in countless domains to enable meaningful interactions with data. There is tremendous opportunity in embracing disciplinary diversity to widen the pool of contributions to visualization design, research, and practice. We describe a few examples of diverse approaches: scientific method, design studies, tool building, participatory research and co design with communities, data storytelling, and autographic design. We discuss opening the aperture, pushing back on what we, as a community, deem acceptable and rigorous, and what can be gained through greater inclusivity of approaches.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.028
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicData Visualization and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207