Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language and visualization (Vis) are two powerful modalities of human communication.The goal of this tutorial is to push forward the agenda of tightly integrating these two modalities.To this end, the tutorial will introduce NLP+Vis with a focus on two main threads of work: (i) NLP for Vis: How to develop and adapt state-of-the-art NLP models for solving various visualization tasks?and (ii) Vis for NLP: How to leverage visualization techniques to interpret and explain complex NLP models effectively?The tutorial will first motivate why NLP+Vis is an important area of research and provide an overview of research topics on combining NLP and Vis techniques.Then an overview of state-of-the-art deep learning models for NLP will be covered.Next, we will provide an overview of applying visualization techniques to help make NLP models more interpretable and explainable.In the final part, we will focus on various application tasks at the intersection of NLP and Vis.We will conclude with an interactive discussion of future challenges for NLP+Vis applications.The audience will include researchers interested in applying NLP for visualizations as well as others who focus more generally at the intersection of machine learning and visualization.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".