Assessing the Readability of Stacked Graphs
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
Stacked graphs are a visualization technique popular in casual scenarios for representing multiple time-series. Variations of stacked graphs have been focused on reducing the distortion of individual streams because foundational perceptual studies suggest that variably curved slopes may make it difficult to accurately read and compare values. We contribute to this discussion by formally comparing the relative readability of basic stacked area charts, ThemeRivers, streamgraphs and our own interactive technique for straightening baselines of individual streams in a ThemeRiver. We used both real-world and randomly generated datasets and covered tasks at the elementary, intermediate and overall information levels. Results indicate that the decreased distortion of the newer techniques does appear to improve their readability, with streamgraphs performing best for value comparison tasks. We also found that when a variety of tasks is expected to be performed, using the interactive version of the themeriver leads to more correctness at the cost of being slower for value comparison tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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