Path Tracing in 2D, 3D, and Physicalized Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is common to advise against using 3D to visualize abstract data such as networks, however Ware and Mitchell's 2008 study showed that path tracing in a network is less error prone in 3D than in 2D. It is unclear, however, if 3D retains its advantage when the 2D presentation of a network is improved using edge-routing, and when simple interaction techniques for exploring the network are available. We address this with two studies of path tracing under new conditions. The first study was preregistered, involved 34 users, and compared 2D and 3D layouts that the user could rotate and move in virtual reality with a handheld controller. Error rates were lower in 3D than in 2D, despite the use of edge-routing in 2D and the use of mouse-driven interactive highlighting of edges. The second study involved 12 users and investigated data physicalization, comparing 3D layouts in virtual reality versus physical 3D printouts of networks augmented with a Microsoft HoloLens headset. No difference was found in error rate, but users performed a variety of actions with their fingers in the physical condition which can inform new interaction techniques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".