A Design Space for Multiscale Visualization
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
Designing multiscale visualizations, particularly when the ratio between the largest scale and the smallest item is large, can be challenging, and designers have developed many approaches to overcome this challenge. We present a design space for visualization with multiple scales. The design space includes three dimensions, with eight total subdimensions. We demonstrate its descriptive power by using it to code approaches from a corpus we compiled of 52 examples, created by a mix of academics and practitioners. We demonstrate descriptive power by analyzing and partitioning these examples into four high-level strategies for designing multiscale visualizations, which are shared approaches with respect to design space dimension choices. We demonstrate generative power by analyzing missed opportunities within the corpus of examples, identified through analysis of the design space, where we note how certain examples could have benefited from different choices. We discuss patterns in the use of different dimension and strategy choices in the different visualization contexts of analysis and presentation. Supplemental materials: https://osf.io/wbrdm/ Design space website: https://marasolen.github.io/multiscale-vis-ds/.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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