Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 39/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
action-oriented convening agenda analysis
Beliv Workshop 2026
This action-oriented convening in Academic / Research / Science shows 30 visible agenda rows from beliv-workshop.github.io and scores 39/100: a thin but inspectable design signal. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Learning Transfer; the main limits are Follow Through and Network Design. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Commitments, Network design, and Learning transfer. Follow-through or tracking is at least visible enough to inspect, though causal proof still depends... A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an action-oriented convening, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the thin outcome architecture band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Future-of-Work Fit; the thinnest visible pillars are Network Design, Follow Through, and Problem Specificity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Commitments, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 55 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Presentation; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Knowledge Transfer.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?70
Participation Architecture - 70/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?16
Follow Through - 16/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?26
Problem Specificity - 26/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.Missing: Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Personalization?31
Personalization - 31/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?16
Network Design - 16/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?49
Learning Transfer - 49/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?42
Evidence Maturity - 42/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.
Future-of-Work Fit?49
Future-of-Work Fit - 49/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Follow Through (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Network Design (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Problem Specificity (26/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
47 percent of the 55 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventA Workshop of the ACM CHI 2008 ConferenceWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventOrganized by: Enrico Bertini, Adam Perer, Catherine Plaisant, Giuseppe Santucci.PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all event[April 2, 2008] The final workshop agenda is ready (see below).WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop DescriptionWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop AgendaWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
09:00Overview of the workshop and logisticsWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
09:30The problems we facePresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventBeyond Time and Errors - Position Statement. (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventEvaluation Comes in Many Guises. (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventEvaluating Visualizations to Unearth Behavior and Insight. (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventEvaluating Visualization techniques and tools: what are the main issues? (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
10:10What to measure and howPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
10:30 - 11:00Coffee breakBreakPacing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisOutcome inferred from formatInferred from format
all eventMeasuring Exploration Coverage and Evaluating Refinding Mechanisms. (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventProxies for Clinical Effectiveness in Genetic Information Visualization. (Position paper)WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
12:30 - 13:3013:30 Qualitative methods and loggingPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
13:30Qualitative methods and loggingPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventHow to effectively use interaction logs for usability evaluation purposes. (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventA methodological note to set up logging and replay mechanisms in InfoVis systems. (Position paper)PresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
15:30Methodologies and Case studiesPresentationKnowledge transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisNo participant output visible from this rowRead from source, no work signal
all eventWorkshop: 5 Apr 2008WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventTo participate to the workshop it is necessary to have a paper accepted and be registered both to the workshop and the main CHI conference.WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventMaterials from BELIV'06, the first edition of the workshop organized at AVI 2006WorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventWorkshop's summary published in the ACM <interactions> magazineWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventExamples of papers about evaluation in infovis. This may be useful as reference to workshop participants and people interested in the topicWorkshopParticipant work+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisParticipant work is implied by the formatInferred from format
all eventA Workshop of the ACM CHI 2008 ConferenceWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventOrganized by: Enrico Bertini, Adam Perer, Catherine Plaisant, Giuseppe Santucci.UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all event[April 2, 2008] The final workshop agenda is ready (see below).WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop DescriptionWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe purpose of information visualization is to provide users with accurate visual representations of data and natural interaction tools to support discovery and sense making. These activities are often exploratory in nature and can take place over days, weeks or months and rarely follow a predefined or linear workflow. While the overall use of information visualizations is accelerating, the growth of techniques for the evaluation of these systems has been slow. To understand these complex behaviors, evaluation efforts should be targeted at the component level, the system level, and the work environment level. The commonly used evaluation metrics such as task time completion and number of errors appear insufficient to quantify the quality of an information visualization system; thus the name of the workshop: “beyond time and errors …”.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop AgendaWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
09:00Overview of the workshop and logisticsWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
09:30 The problems we faceUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventBeyond Time and Errors - Position Statement. (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventEvaluation Comes in Many Guises. (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventEvaluating Visualizations to Unearth Behavior and Insight. (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventEvaluating Visualization techniques and tools: what are the main issues? (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
10:10 What to measure and howUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
10:30 - 11:00 Coffee breakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMeasuring Exploration Coverage and Evaluating Refinding Mechanisms. (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventProxies for Clinical Effectiveness in Genetic Information Visualization. (Position paper)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
12:30 - 13:30 13:30 Qualitative methods and loggingUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
13:30 Qualitative methods and loggingUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventHow to effectively use interaction logs for usability evaluation purposes. (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventA methodological note to set up logging and replay mechanisms in InfoVis systems. (Position paper)UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
15:30 Methodologies and Case studiesUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
16:40 - 17:40 DiscussionUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe workshop will take place over one full day, limited to about 20 participants. Participants will introduce themselves and be asked to write on sticky notes, suggested topics for the afternoon discussion and what they hope outcomes of the workshop should be. Then selected papers will be presented in the morning and early afternoon. The majority of the afternoon will then be dedicated to discussions and work in breakout sessions. We will end by reports to the whole group for a closing synthesis. We will provide groups with paper, markers, sticky notes, and other supplies to facilitate brainstorming and reporting. This will also facilitate the preparation of a poster summarizing the workshop. An optional dinner will follow the workshop to further strengthen bonds between participants.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop: 5 Apr 2008WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventTo participate to the workshop it is necessary to have a paper accepted and be registered both to the workshop and the main CHI conference.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPosition papers are short statements (1-2 pages) describing a participant's relevant experience and ideas that can contribute to the discussion during the workshop. They will be made available to the workshop participants only.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMaterials from BELIV'06, the first edition of the workshop organized at AVI 2006:WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop's summary published in the ACM <interactions> magazineWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventExamples of papers about evaluation in infovis. This may be useful as reference to workshop participants and people interested in the topicWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventRelated Workshop: A related workshop will take place at the IEEE Visualization 2007 symposium in Sacramento on October 28th 2007: Metrics for the Evaluation of Visual Analytics. While the Beliv'08 workshop will discuss new methodologies for evaluation in general, the VIS 2007 workshop focuses on metrics and will be conducted with brainstorming and teamwork to produce ideas of new metrics and test them with existing systems.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 37/100 and verified 37/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an action-oriented convening, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and learning transfer and the biggest open question around follow through and network design. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Future-of-Work Fit. Weakest signals: Network Design, Follow Through, and Problem Specificity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from beliv-workshop.github.io. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Commitments, Network design, Learning transfer.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No tracking, validation, feedback, or impact measurement found in the visible source text.
- Original category was unknown; publication category is inferred.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2026_ieeevis_org_year_2026_info_program_workshops_beliv_2008_beliv_workshop_gith"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Academic / Research / Science events scored on the same eight pillars.