Slide4N: Creating Presentation Slides from Computational Notebooks with Human-AI Collaboration
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data scientists often have to use other presentation tools (e.g., Microsoft PowerPoint) to create slides to communicate their analysis obtained using computational notebooks. Much tedious and repetitive work is needed to transfer the routines of notebooks (e.g., code, plots) to the presentable contents on slides (e.g., bullet points, figures). We propose a human-AI collaborative approach and operationalize it within Slide4N, an interactive AI assistant for data scientists to create slides from computational notebooks. Slide4N leverages advanced natural language processing techniques to distill key information from user-selected notebook cells and then renders them in appropriate slide layouts. The tool also provides intuitive interactions that allow further refinement and customization of the generated slides. We evaluated Slide4N with a two-part user study, where participants appreciated this human-AI collaborative approach compared to fully-manual or fully-automatic methods. The results also indicate the usefulness and effectiveness of Slide4N in slide creation tasks from notebooks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it