Data Has Entered the Chat: How Data Workers Conduct Exploratory Visual Analytic Conversations with GenAI Agents
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
We investigate the potential of leveraging the code-generating capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to support exploratory visual analysis (EVA) via conversational user interfaces (CUIs). We developed a technology probe that was deployed through two studies with a total of 50 data workers to explore the structure and flow of visual analytic conversations during EVA. We analyzed conversations from both studies using thematic analysis and derived a state transition diagram summarizing the conversational flow between four states of participant utterances ( Analytic Tasks , Editing Operations , Elaborations and Enrichments , and Directive Commands ) and two states of Generative AI (GenAI) agent responses (visualization, text). We describe the capabilities and limitations of GenAI agents according to each state and transitions between states as three co-occurring loops: analysis elaboration, refinement, and explanation. We discuss our findings as future research trajectories to improve the experiences of data workers using GenAI. The code and data are available at https://osf.io/6wxpa .
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 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