We present ScaleTrotter, a conceptual framework for an interactive, multi-scale visualization of biological mesoscale data and, specifically, genome data. ScaleTrotter allows viewers to smoothly transition from the nucleus of a cell to the atomistic composition of the DNA, while bridging several orders of magnitude in scale. The challenges in creating an interactive visualization of genome data are fundamentally different in several ways from those in other domains like astronomy that require a multi-scale representation as well. First, genome data has intertwined scale levels---the DNA is an extremely long, connected molecule that manifests itself at all scale levels. Second, elements of the DNA do not disappear as one zooms out---instead the scale levels at which they are observed group these elements differently. Third, we have detailed information and thus geometry for the entire dataset and for all scale levels, posing a challenge for interactive visual exploration. Finally, the conceptual scale levels for genome data are close in scale space, requiring us to find ways to visually embed a smaller scale into a coarser one. We address these challenges by creating a new multi-scale visualization concept. We use a scale-dependent camera model that controls the visual embedding of the scales into their respective parents, the rendering of a subset of the scale hierarchy, and the location, size, and scope of the view. In traversing the scales, ScaleTrotter is roaming between 2D and 3D visual representations that are depicted in integrated visuals. We discuss, specifically, how this form of multi-scale visualization follows from the specific characteristics of the genome data and describe its implementation. Finally, we discuss the implications of our work to the general illustrative depiction of multi-scale data.
We investigate multi-scale representations of the DNA, which relates to work in bio-molecular visualization. Several surveys have summarized work in this field @cite_14 @cite_3 @cite_25 @cite_17 , so below we only point out selected approaches. In addition, a large body of work by professional illustrators on mesoscale cell depiction inspired us such as visualizing the human chromosome down to the detail of individual parts of the molecule @cite_15 .
@cite_14 @cite_3 @cite_15 @cite_25 @cite_17
2267499985 2807479273 2549327495 2890964348
A citing sentence is one that appears in a scientific article and cites previous work. Citing sentences have been studied and used in many applications. For example, they have been used in scientific paper summarization, automatic survey generation, paraphrase identification, and citation function classification. Citing sentences that cite multiple papers are common in scientific writing. This observation should be taken into consideration when using citing sentences in applications. For instance, when a citing sentence is used in a summary of a scientific paper, only the fragments of the sentence that are relevant to the summarized paper should be included in the summary. In this paper, we present and compare three different approaches for identifying the fragments of a citing sentence that are related to a given target reference. Our methods are: word classification, sequence labeling, and segment classification. Our experiments show that segment classification achieves the best results. Abstract Documents in computer-readable form can be used to provide information about other documents, i.e. those they cite. To do this efficiently requires procedures for computer recognition of citing statements. This is not easy, especially for multi-sentence citing statements. Computer recognition procedures have been developed which are accurate to the following extent: 73 of the words in statements selected by computer procedures as being citing statements are words which are correctly attributable to the corresponding documents. The retrieval effectiveness of computer-recognized citing statements was tested in the following way. First, for eight retrieval requests in inorganiic chemistry, average recall by search of Chemical Abstracts Service indexing and Chemical Abstracts abstract text words was found to be 50 . Words from citing statements referring to the papers to be retrieved were then added to the index terms and abstract words as additional access points, and searching was repeated. Average recall increased to 70 . Only words from citing statements published within a year of the cited papers were used. The retrieval effect of citing statement words alone (published within a year) without index or abstract terms was the following: average recall was 40 . When just the words of the titles of the cited papers were added to those citing statement words, average recall increased to 50 . In recent years scholars have built maps of science by connecting the academic fields that cite each other, are cited together, or that cite a similar literature. But since scholars cannot always publish in the fields they cite, or that cite them, these science maps are only rough proxies for the potential of a scholar, organization, or country, to enter a new academic field. Here we use a large dataset of scholarly publications disambiguated at the individual level to create a map of science-or research space-where links connect pairs of fields based on the probability that an individual has published in both of them. We find that the research space is a significantly more accurate predictor of the fields that individuals and organizations will enter in the future than citation based science maps. At the country level, however, the research space and citations based science maps are equally accurate. These findings show that data on career trajectories-the set of fields that individuals have previously published in-provide more accurate predictors of future research output for more focalized units-such as individuals or organizations-than citation based science maps. In a document network such as a citation network of scientific documents, web-logs, etc., the content produced by authors exhibits their interest in certain topics. In addition some authors influence other authors' interests. In this work, we propose to model the influence of cited authors along with the interests of citing authors. Moreover, we hypothesize that apart from the citations present in documents, the context surrounding the citation mention provides extra topical information about the cited authors. However, associating terms in the context to the cited authors remains an open problem. We propose novel document generation schemes that incorporate the context while simultaneously modeling the interests of citing authors and influence of the cited authors. Our experiments show significant improvements over baseline models for various evaluation criteria such as link prediction between document and cited author, and quantitatively explaining unseen text. Historically, papers have been physically bound to the journal in which they were published; but in the digital age papers are available individually, no longer tied to their respective journals. Hence, papers now can be read and cited based on their own merits, independently of the journal's physical availability, reputation, or impact factor (IF). We compare the strength of the relationship between journals' IFs and the actual citations received by their respective papers from 1902 to 2009. Throughout most of the 20th century, papers' citation rates were increasingly linked to their respective journals' IFs. However, since 1990, the advent of the digital age, the relation between IFs and paper citations has been weakening. This began first in physics, a field that was quick to make the transition into the electronic domain. Furthermore, since 1990 the overall proportion of highly cited papers coming from highly cited journals has been decreasing and, of these highly cited papers, the proportion not coming from highly cited journals has been increasing. Should this pattern continue, it might bring an end to the use of the IF as a way to evaluate the quality of journals, papers, and researchers. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.