Designing for Ambiguity in Visual Analytics: Lessons from Risk Assessment and Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambiguity is pervasive in the complex sensemaking domains of risk assessment and prediction but there remains little research on how to design visual analytics tools to accommodate it. We report on findings from a qualitative study based on a conceptual framework of sensemaking processes to investigate how both new visual analytics designs and existing tools, primarily data tables, support the cognitive work demanded in avalanche forecasting. While both systems yielded similar analytic outcomes we observed differences in ambiguous sensemaking and the analytic actions either afforded. Our findings challenge conventional visualization design guidance in both perceptual and interaction design, highlighting the need for data interfaces that encourage reflection, provoke alternative interpretations, and support the inherently ambiguous nature of sensemaking in this critical application. We review how different visual and interactive forms support or impede analytic processes and introduce "gisting" as a significant yet unexplored analytic action for visual analytics research. We conclude with design implications for enabling ambiguity in visual analytics tools to scaffold sensemaking in risk assessment.
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 | 0.037 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".