Citation Network

How the sources cited by 214 notes connect, drawn as 15 pictures.

Reading the work

Each source is a point, and each note is a single line that ties together all the sources it cites. The 869 sources cited by two or more notes become the main points; the shape shows the kind (filled = academic, ring = practice), and the bleed of a line shows its age (the threads of the weave do not bleed). The 5,843 sources cited by only one note appear in every work as small faint dots around where that note sits. Red marks only what you point at or select.

Marbling

In the order the notes were written, a drop of ink and a drop of water fall at the middle of each note’s cited sources to make a ring, and the slow flow of the water draws the rings out. Source dots sit where a force layout settles, pulling sources often cited together close and pushing others apart, so groups drift apart and older sources tend to the left (it shifts a little each time the page opens). Each ring falls at the middle of its note’s dots, so the dots also decide where the rings are. Every dot’s position is set before drawing starts, and a dot does not move once it appears.

Marbling: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Dot	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Dot size	Citation count
Dot shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Dot shade Dot brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
How close dots sit	Co-citation count (the more, the closer)
Ink ring	A note (ink dropped at the middle of the dots of the sources it cites, then water dropped on the same spot to open it into a ring)
Ring size	How many sources the note cites (the ink’s area is proportional to it)
How rings nest and stretch	Date written (later drops push earlier rings outward, and the water keeps flowing, so the older a ring, the thinner and longer it stretches; the last note’s ring stays nearly round)
Ring shade Ring brightness	The group the note cites most (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers). Rings of notes that cite few sources are fainter The group the note cites most (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers). Rings of notes that cite few sources, and lines where rings crowd, are fainter
Ink bleed of a ring Glow of a ring	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A ring is dated by the day its note was written. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A ring is dated by the day its note was written. Newer → older
Shape and direction of the flow	Nothing (it runs along the long side of the screen; the meanders and swirls change with each generation)
Small faint dots	A source cited by only one note (around where that note’s ink was dropped; like the dots, they are not carried by the flow)
Order dots appear (period at lower left)	Date written and period (a dot appears when the ink of the first note citing it is dropped)
Red	The source dot or note ring you point at or select (nothing else is red). Selecting a note’s ring brings out the dots of the sources it cites

ring size ← sources cited, ring stretch ← age

Based on: Lu et al. (2012), Jaffer (2010), Batchelor (1967/2000), Jacomy et al. (2014), Small (1973)

Rings

Periods run from the center outward, and each source sits on the ring of the period it was first cited, inside its group’s slice. Inside its cell, a source leans toward the side where its co-cited sources are. The layout is worked out again each time a note arrives, so the dots move while the picture is drawn.

Rings: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Dot	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Dot size	Citation count
Dot shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Dot shade Dot brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Distance from the center (ring)	The period a source was first cited (the center is the earliest)
Angle (slice)	Group. Slices run clockwise from the right edge of the crack by paper share, lowest first (ties: larger group first). The crack’s direction changes with each generation.
Slice width	How many sources the group has
Position inside a cell	The direction of the sources it is cited with (small shifts mean nothing)
Tick	A note (on the ring of its period, in the slice of the group it cites most)
Ticks in the last slice	Notes that cite no source shared by two or more notes
Line from a tick to a dot	A source the note cites
Thin arc outside the rings (from a dot to an arrowhead)	Scale for the order of the slices (low paper share at the dot, high at the arrowhead)
Numbers in the crack	The periods
Small faint dots around a tick	A source cited by only one note (around that note’s tick, inside the band of its period)
Ink bleed of lines and rings Glow of lines and rings	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A line from a tick is dated by the day its note was written; a ring, by its period. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A line from a tick is dated by the day its note was written; a ring, by its period. Newer → older
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

radius ← period first cited, angle ← group

Based on: Jacomy et al. (2014), Eades (1984), Fruchterman & Reingold (1991), Small (1973), Krzywinski et al. (2012)

Weave

Each thread is one note, and each knot where threads meet is a source cited by two or more notes. Knots sit where a force layout settles, pulling sources often cited together close and pushing all sources apart; its turn and shape change each time the page opens. The layout is worked out again each time a note arrives, so the dots move while the picture is drawn.

Weave: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Knot	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Knot size	Citation count
Knot shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Shade of knots and threads Brightness of knots and threads	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
How close knots sit	Co-citation count (the more, the closer)
Thread	A note (it runs through the sources it cites, starting from an outer one and stepping to the nearest one each time; its shade follows the group it passes through most)
Wavering width of a thread	Nothing (a brush wobble; every thread is fine and does not bleed)
Small faint dots around a thread	A source cited by only one note (around that note’s thread; the exact spot means nothing)
Small looped thread	A note that cites one or none of the sources cited by two or more notes
Order threads appear (period at lower left)	Date written and period (oldest note first)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

closeness ← co-citation count, knot size ← citation count

Based on: Jacomy et al. (2014), Eades (1984), Fruchterman & Reingold (1991), Small (1973), Yuksel et al. (2009)

Constellation

Each star is a source cited by two or more notes, and lines join nearby stars that are often cited together into small constellations. Stars sit where a force layout on a sphere settles, pulling sources often cited together close and pushing groups apart. The layout is worked out again each time a note arrives, so the dots move while the picture is drawn.

Constellation: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Star	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Star size	Citation count
Star shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Star shade Star brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Line	Two nearby sources that have been cited together. Pairs cited together most often are joined first, and only if the line crosses no other line. A constellation has at most 10 stars, and distant pairs are never joined. Inside a constellation, one small loop at most may be added, from a pair that three or more notes cite together
Ink bleed of a line Glow of a line	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A line is dated by the day the two sources were first cited together. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A line is dated by the day the two sources were first cited together. Newer → older
Line width	Co-citation count (the more, the slightly thicker; every line has the same shade)
How close stars sit	Co-citation count (the more, the closer)
Constellations joined by lines	Nearby sources that are often cited together (each group holds several, with starless sky between groups)
Small faint stars	A source cited by only one note (scattered near the stars that note cites; never joined by lines)
Order stars light up (period at lower left)	Date written and period (the order of the note that first cites each source)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

lines ← nearby pairs with the most co-citations (no crossings, at most 10 stars per constellation)

Based on: Jacomy et al. (2014), Eades (1984), Fruchterman & Reingold (1991), Small (1973), Kobourov & Wampler (2005), Snyder (1987)

Slime mould

In the order the notes were written, slime-mould particles are born where each note’s sources sit, crawl while leaving a scent, and join often-cited sources with the lines of a network. The longer a path is used, the darker it is; the more particles pass, the wider. Source dots sit at their places in the same force layout as Marbling (sources often cited together sit close). These places are worked out while the picture is drawn, and stop moving once the layout settles.

Slime mould: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Dot	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Dot size	Citation count (the more, the stronger the scent, and the more the network gathers there)
Dot shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
How close dots sit	Co-citation count (the more, the closer)
Lines of the network	Paths the slime-mould particles have crawled. Four particles are born per citation, where the note’s sources sit
Line width	How many particles have passed along that path
Line darkness Line brightness	How long the path has been used (the longer, the darker) How long the path has been used (the longer, the brighter)
Faint lines underneath	Old paths, used for a while and then left by the particles
Shade steps of the lines Brightness steps of the lines	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Ink bleed of a line Glow of a line	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A line is dated by the average day of the notes whose particles crawled there. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A line is dated by the average day of the notes whose particles crawled there. Newer → older
Small faint dots	A source cited by only one note (crawling along the network with the particle born for that source; touch one to pick its note)
Order the network grows (period at lower left)	Date written and period (when a note arrives, particles are born at its sources)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

heading ← whichever of ahead, ahead-left, and ahead-right smells stronger (each particle leaves scent where it goes)

Based on: Jones (2010), Jacomy et al. (2014), Small (1973)

School

Each source cited by two or more notes is one member of a swarm; sources in the same group, and sources cited together, match their heading and gather, turning in whirls. Each line is the path it moved along. Each group’s swarm whirls around the middle of its sources in the same force layout as Marbling (sources often cited together sit close), and the dots move with the swarm. The swarms’ places are worked out while the picture is drawn.

School: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Point at the head of a line	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Point shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Line	The path the source moved along under the swarm rules (the head is where it is now). Sources in the same group, and sources cited together, match heading and gather; all others only keep apart
Line width and length	Citation count
Shade of lines and points Brightness of lines and points	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Ink bleed of a line Glow of a line	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A line is dated by the day its source was first cited. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A line is dated by the day its source was first cited. Newer → older
Whirls, and where they sit	Group (each group turns in one whirl, around where the group sits in a layout that places often co-cited sources close together)
Small faint dots	A source cited by only one note (scattered near the heads of the lines of that note’s sources; touch one to pick its note)
Order lines appear (period at lower left)	Date written and period (the order of the note that first cites each source)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

heading ← repulsion, or else kin’s mean heading + direction to kin (kin = same group + co-cited)

Based on: Couzin et al. (2002), Reynolds (1987), Small (1973)

Cells

Every source a note cites is one particle; from a rule that turns each particle only by how many neighbours it has, clusters form, grow as notes are added, and split. The lines are contours of particle density and the particles’ short tracks. Particles are born around their places in the same force layout as Marbling (sources often cited together sit close), and then move only by the rule. Birth places are worked out while the picture is drawn.

Cells: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Particle	One source (every source any note cites)
Larger point	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Size of a larger point	Citation count
Shape of a larger point	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Small points	A source cited by only one note (born near that note’s sources and moved by the rule; larger and darker inside a cluster; touch one to pick its note)
Clusters of particles, and their splitting	The result of a rule that turns each particle only by how many neighbours it has (the data sets how many particles there are, and when and where they are born)
Cluster size (two sizes)	How many particles a group has (particles of groups above the median follow the same rule scaled up 1.45 times, so they form larger clusters)
Contour lines	Particle density (the outer line is a cluster’s edge; denser further in)
Fine arcs	A particle’s recent movement
Shade of points and lines Brightness of points and lines	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Ink bleed of a line Glow of a line	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). Dated by the notes that bore the particles there. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). Dated by the notes that bore the particles there. Newer → older
Order particles are born (period at lower left)	Date written and period
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

turn ← a fixed turn + number of nearby particles × the busier side

Based on: Schmickl et al. (2016), Jacomy et al. (2014)

Foam

Each source holds one patch of the picture; patches move to the centre of the area they hold, and pack small and tight where many references sit. Points are born at their places in the same force layout as Marbling (sources often cited together sit close), and then move toward the centre of their patches. Birth places are worked out while the picture is drawn, and the points keep moving after they are born.

Foam: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Patch	One source (every source, whether cited by one note or more); touch one to pick the source, or the note for a source cited by only one note
Patch size	How many references sit there (the more, the smaller and tighter)
Dot	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Dot shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Dot size	Citation count
Shade of borders Brightness of borders	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Bold borders	Between patches of different groups (group outlines)
How close dense areas sit	Co-citation count (the more, the closer)
Ink bleed of borders Glow of borders	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A border is dated by the average age of the day its two sources were first cited. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A border is dated by the average age of the day its two sources were first cited. Newer → older
Fine lines inside patches	The path each patch’s dot took after being pushed out from where it was born
Small faint dots	A source cited by only one note (each holds a patch near where its note is born)
Order patches appear (period at lower left)	Date written and period
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

dot ← centre of its patch, weighted by the number of references

Based on: Secord (2002), Lloyd (1982), Du et al. (1999), Jacomy et al. (2014)

Brushstroke

Each source takes the order it was first cited as its phase; sources close in phase gather into a ring, which is cut open and drawn as a band swaying from the oldest sources at left to the newest at right. A source’s position is its angle on the ring, set by the order it was first cited, so older sources sit further left. The dots keep moving after they are born.

Brushstroke: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Band	The swarm of sources cited by two or more notes, in the order they were first cited from left to right (oldest at left, newest at right)
Up-and-down sway of the band	How the ring the swarm forms is distorted (where sources cited together pull into phase and gather, and where busy periods bulge)
Band width	How widely the swarm spreads at that point
Width and breaks of the strands	How many sources sit there (more is thicker; a strand breaks where there are none)
Strand shade Strand brightness	Age, and how many sources were first cited around then (older and more is darker) Age, and how many sources were first cited around then (older and more is brighter)
Faint fine lines	Where each source moved (shade is its group)
Dot	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Dot shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Dot shade Dot brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Ink bleed of the strands Glow of the strands	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). Measured by when the sources at that point were first cited. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). Measured by when the sources at that point were first cited. Newer → older
Small faint dots around the band	A source cited by only one note (scattered near that note’s sources; touch one to pick its note)
Order it grows (period at lower left)	Date written and period (the band grows from left to right)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

position ← attraction stronger for closer phase (swarmalators); phase ← order first cited

Based on: O’Keeffe et al. (2017), Small (1973)

Bundle

Sources sit around a circle, and lines bundled along the paths of their groups join sources cited together. Positions on the circle follow group order (lowest share of papers first), then, inside each group, the period each source was first cited. Positions follow directly from order and dates, so all of them are known before drawing.

Bundle: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Mark on the circle	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Mark size	Citation count
Mark shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Mark shade Mark brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Order around the circle	Groups run clockwise by paper share, lowest first (ties: larger group first). Within a group, sources follow the period in which they were first cited; within a period, the number of citing notes (ties: higher betweenness first).
Thin outer arc	Where a group runs
Line	Two sources that have been cited together
Ink bleed of a line Glow of a line	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A line is dated by the day the two sources were first cited together. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A line is dated by the day the two sources were first cited together. Newer → older
Line width and shade Line width and brightness	Co-citation count (the more, the thicker and darker), and the shades of the two groups Co-citation count (the more, the thicker; overlaps glow brighter), and the brightness of the two groups (shifting from one end to the other)
How lines bend	The path through the tree of groups and periods (lines on the same path form bundles)
Small faint dots just inside the circle	A source cited by only one note (toward where the sources that note cites sit on the circle)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

Based on: Holten (2006), Holten & van Wijk (2009), de Boor (1978)

Arcs

Notes sit on one line in the order they were written, and arcs join notes that cite the same source. Positions depend only on the order of writing, with equal spacing. Positions follow directly from order and dates, so all of them are known before drawing.

Arcs: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Tick	A note
Small dot at the top of an arc	A source (cited by two or more notes), placed at the top of the arc joining the first and last notes that cite it (the span of the arc shows how far apart those notes are)
Shape of a small dot	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Short, light tick	A note that shares no source with any other note
Order (left to right, or top to bottom on narrow screens)	Notes are evenly spaced in the order they were written; same-day notes by name.
Marks and numbers beside the baseline	The periods
Small faint dots above a tick	A source cited by only one note (above that note’s tick; the more, the higher they pile)
Arc	Two notes that share at least one source
Arc width and shade Arc width and brightness	Shared-source count (the more, the thicker and darker) Shared-source count (the more, the thicker and brighter)
Arc size	How far apart the two notes were written
Ink bleed of an arc Glow of an arc	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). An arc is dated by the day the newer of the two notes was written (when the link formed). Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). An arc is dated by the day the newer of the two notes was written (when the link formed). Newer → older
Arc shade step Arc brightness step	The group most of the shared sources belong to (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) The group most of the shared sources belong to (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Red	The note you point at or select

arc width and shade ← shared-source count arc width and brightness ← shared-source count

Based on: Wattenberg (2002), Kessler (1963)

River

Time runs from left to right, and the width of each band is how often that group’s sources were cited around that time. Each source’s dot sits across at the day it was first cited and up at a fixed height inside its group’s band. Positions follow directly from order and dates, so all of them are known before drawing.

River: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Horizontal position	Date written (older on the left)
Small dot inside a band	A source (cited by two or more notes), placed in its group’s band at the day it was first cited (its height within the band means nothing)
Shape of a small dot	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Band	Group
Band thickness	How many times notes written around that date cite the group’s sources
Band shade Band brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Order of the bands	Groups that appear earlier sit closer to the center (same day: larger total first). Each band is added outside the lighter side.
Ink bleed of the band edges and streaks Glow of the band edges and streaks	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). The river is dated point by point along the horizontal axis (older to the left). Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). The river is dated point by point along the horizontal axis (older to the left). Newer → older
Thin vertical lines and numbers along the bottom	Where each period begins, and which period it is
Ticks along the bottom	Notes written that day (the more, the longer)
Small faint dots inside the bands	A source cited by only one note (at the date the note was written, inside the band of the group it cites most)
Red	What the note you point at or select adds to the river

band thickness ← citations around that time

Based on: Byron & Wattenberg (2008), Havre et al. (2002), Silverman (1986)

Dry garden

Sources form one cluster of points per group; particles of sources cited by only one note flow while matching their heading with their neighbours, split at each cluster and circle it, and the direction of that flow is drawn as fine lines. Each group’s cluster sits at the middle of its sources in the same force layout as Marbling (sources often cited together sit close), and overlapping clusters are pushed apart. The rule is run to the end, and the picture is drawn once every position is set.

Dry garden: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Point	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Point size	Citation count
Point shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Point shade Point brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
A cluster of points	A group (inside a cluster, sources often cited together sit closer; clusters of groups often cited together sit closer)
Rings around a cluster	How often the group’s sources were cited in total (the more, the more rings; 2 to 5)
Flow lines	The direction in which the particles of sources cited by only one note flowed while matching their neighbours (splitting at each cluster and circling it). The lines never bleed
Small faint dots	A source cited by only one note (they flow out from where the note is born and stay where the flow ends; touch one to pick its note)
Ink bleed of a ring Glow of a ring	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A ring is dated by the mean age of the days its group’s sources were first cited (kept subtle). Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A ring is dated by the mean age of the days its group’s sources were first cited (kept subtle). Newer → older
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

heading ← mean heading of nearby particles + noise (along the edge near a cluster)

Based on: Vicsek et al. (1995), Jobard & Lefer (1997), Jacomy et al. (2014)

Coral

Each source is one dot; dots in a group pass two substances to their neighbours, and the more active a dot, the larger it is drawn, so spots and mazes appear. Dots on the edge follow it to a strong part of the pattern and stop. A dot joins its group’s edge at the spot nearest to its place in the same force layout as Marbling (sources often cited together sit close). The rule is run to the end, and the picture is drawn once every position is set.

Coral: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Halftone dot	One source (cited by two or more notes, or by only one); touch one to pick the note that brought it
Halftone dot size	How much of the substance (activator) it passes with its neighbours; large dots together make the spots and mazes (where they fall means nothing)
Halftone dot shade Halftone dot brightness	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Kind of pattern (spots or mazes)	The group’s share of papers (fewer: small spots; more: mazes)
How close clusters of dots sit	Co-citation count (the more, the closer)
Overlaid point	A source (cited by two or more notes)
Overlaid point size	Citation count
Overlaid point shape	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Paleness and bleed of a dot Glow of a dot	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A dot is dated by the day the note that brought it was written. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A dot is dated by the day the note that brought it was written. Newer → older
Order dots join	Date written and period (the order the notes were written)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

dot size ← activator passed with neighbours (Turing); swelling ← edge dots that stop where the pattern is strong

Based on: Slavkov et al. (2018), Jacomy et al. (2014)

Roots

Notes are lined up from left to right in the order they were written; each note’s token walks to a neighbouring note, more often toward the one it shares more sources with, and merges with any token it meets, so the paths join from top to bottom. Source dots sit on the line of the note that first cited them, in order of how often they were cited. The rule is run to the end, and the picture is drawn once every position is set.

Roots: What you see, and what it shows
What you see	What it shows
Dot at the top	A note (left to right in the order written; size is how many sources it cites; a faint dot shares no source with any other note)
Line	The path a note’s token walked (time runs downward); tokens that meet merge into one line
Line width	How many notes the line carries
Dot where lines join	Where tokens met and merged
Shade of dots and lines Brightness of dots and lines	Group (lighter means fewer papers, darker means more papers) Group (dimmer means fewer papers, brighter means more papers)
Which way a token steps	Shared-source count (a token steps more often toward the neighbour it shares more sources with)
Small dots on the lines	A source (cited by two or more notes), lined up along the path of the note that first cited it, most cited first
Size of the small dots	Citation count
Shape of the small dots	Kind (filled = academic, ring = practice) Academic 618 Practice 251
Ink bleed of a line Glow of a line	Age (the older, the further the ink spreads into the paper). A line is dated by the average age of the notes it carries. Age (the older, the softer and wider the glow). A line is dated by the average age of the notes it carries. Newer → older
Small faint dots around a top dot	A source cited by only one note (around that note’s dot)
Circled numbers at the top	Period (the notes between two marks were written in that period)
Red	What you point at or select (nothing else is red)

lines ← paths of tokens that step to neighbouring notes and merge when they meet (stepping more often toward neighbours that share more sources)

Based on: Israeli & Jalfon (1990), Kessler (1963)

From notes to pictures

1Notes

214 published Japanese notes. Drafts and the notes about this page’s works and methods are not counted.
2Sources

DOIs and URLs from each note’s references, with repeats merged: 6,712.
3Count

The six quantities below, counted once when the site is generated.
4Draw

Each work’s rules turn them into position, size, shape, shade, lines, and bleed.

Citation count: How many notes cite the source.
Co-citation count: How many notes cite two sources together in the same note. Known in analysis as co-citation (Small, 1973).
Shared-source count: How many sources two notes both cite. Known in analysis as bibliographic coupling (Kessler, 1963).
Date written and period: The day a note was first written, and which of the five periods on the top page it falls in. Age is how long before the newest note’s day it is (the first note’s day is the oldest).
Group: A cluster of sources that tend to be cited together (15, found automatically), and the share of papers in it. The share of papers is the share of sources whose kind is academic.
Kind: Whether a source is academic or practice. Academic means papers and preprints (sources with a DOI, and those on arXiv, the ACL Anthology, or OpenReview); practice means companies, public bodies, and the rest of the web, such as news and blogs. The share of papers uses the same split. Of the 869 sources drawn as points: academic 618, practice 251.

What stands out

Notes from five of the five periods cite the same paper, which found that stories written with ideas from generative AI end up more alike.
See it in Constellation ↑

More detail, and sources

Position and distance

In the marbling, the weave and the constellation, sources often cited together pull on each other, sources push each other away, and each settles where the forces balance (the forces follow Jacomy et al., 2014). In the marbling and the constellation, the push reaches only nearby sources, while sources in different groups push each other harder and from further off, so groups hold together with gaps between them. The marbling lies on a rectangle with the proportions of the screen; the constellation lies on a sphere (Kobourov & Wampler, 2005) projected onto the screen by stereographic projection (Snyder, 1987). The weave lies on an unbounded plane where every source pushes every other and is drawn toward a pattern chosen each time (a disc, a spiral, a ring and so on), and the settled net is fitted to the screen in a different orientation each time. In the marbling, neither the ink rings nor the flow of the water moves the dots, so the dots stay where the layout put them. Only relative closeness and density mean something; the overall shape changes every time. A force-directed picture depends on where it starts (Gansner et al., 2005), so a new arrangement grows each time rather than one being shown as the answer. Reading closeness always leaves some ambiguity (Venturini et al., 2021).

How the swarm works move

In the slime mould, the school, the cells, the foam and the brushstroke, each source becomes an individual that reacts only to its neighbours or to the traces left around it. Nothing computes the overall shape; the shape comes out of what the individuals do to one another. Individuals are born in the order the notes were written, where the sources each note cites sit. Those places come from the same rectangle layout as the marbling, so sources often cited together are born near each other. The rules come from Jones, 2010 for the slime mould, Couzin et al., 2002 for the school, Schmickl et al., 2016 for the cells, Secord, 2002 for the foam and O’Keeffe et al., 2017 for the brushstroke. The individuals of the slime mould, the school, the cells and the brushstroke never stop moving, so they run for a set time after the last note arrives, and that moment is held as the picture. The stills dry garden, coral and roots are drawn by swarms too, with rules from Vicsek et al., 1995, Slavkov et al., 2018 and Israeli & Jalfon, 1990 respectively; they run to the end with a fixed random seed and are then drawn whole, so these three look the same every time they open.

The 15 groups

Sources often cited together are sorted into groups by the Louvain method (Blondel et al., 2008); a person named them after reading what is inside. They are listed from fewer papers to more papers, the same order as the shades in the pictures (brightness in the dark theme).

consulting / industry 0% papers, 3, ⑤
Watching the industry 1% papers, 94, ②
user-research / checklist 15% papers, 39, ⑤
ai-search / aio 31% papers, 16, ⑤
Delegating judgment to AI, and evaluation standards 36% papers, 70, ④
Design systems 53% papers, 15, ④
Measuring dispositions and ability 76% papers, 74, ⑤
Research gaps and reframing problems 80% papers, 69, ②
ai-slop / descriptive-norms 91% papers, 65, ③
LLMs as judges 92% papers, 62, ③
AI in design practice and education 94% papers, 200, ⑤
construct-validity / gyaru 95% papers, 40, ③
How to frame research questions 97% papers, 38, ②
Generative art and creativity 98% papers, 42, ③
Learning and cognitive load 100% papers, 42, ③

The five periods

The same periods as “Interests over time” on the top page, counted by the day a note was first written.

① Work and pay June 2026, 26 notes
② Pay and methods July 2026, 57 notes
③ Learning and lineage August 2026, 51 notes
④ Standards and judgment September 2026, 28 notes
⑤ Head starts and growth October 2026, 52 notes

What each point rests on

Notes from five of the five periods cite the same paper, which found that stories written with ideas from generative AI end up more alike. The paper is Doshi & Hauser (2024), and 20 notes cite it. Draw a line between every two sources that one note cites together: this paper then lies on the shortest paths between other sources more often than any other source (this measure is called betweenness centrality; Freeman, 1977). Open the paper ↗

Numbers

Published notes counted: 214
Sources cited: 6,712; 3,492 with a DOI
Sources cited by 2+ notes: 869
Pairs of sources cited together: 18,366
Groups: 15
Modularity: 0.69; closer to 1 means cleaner groups

209 notes had at least one readable source. The 28 draft notes and the notes about this page’s works and methods are not counted.

Raw data and records

Raw data (JSON)rebuilt every time the site is generated
Analysis notethe steps, results (figures as of 2026-09-25), and formulas of the works
Literature noteprior work on network visualization and data art

Built with TypeScript, p5.js (Canvas 2D), graphology, Astro

References

Methods of the analysis

Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630240406
Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090140103
Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69(2), 026113. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.026113
Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033543
Brandes, U. (2001). A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 25(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249
Battiston, F., Cencetti, G., Iacopini, I., Latora, V., Lucas, M., Patania, A., Young, J.-G., & Petri, G. (2020). Networks beyond pairwise interactions: Structure and dynamics. Physics Reports, 874, 1–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2020.05.004
Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack, K. W. (2003). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 37(1), 179–255. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440370106
Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Placing by forces, and projecting the sphere (marbling, weave, constellation, rings)

Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S., & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679
Eades, P. (1984). A heuristic for graph drawing. Congressus Numerantium, 42, 149–160. https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~will/536E/papers/Eades1984.pdf
Fruchterman, T. M. J., & Reingold, E. M. (1991). Graph drawing by force-directed placement. Software: Practice and Experience, 21(11), 1129–1164. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.4380211102
D3. (n.d.). d3-force [Software documentation]. D3. https://d3js.org/d3-force Checked by reading the official documentation (2026-09-23).
Kobourov, S. G., & Wampler, K. (2005). Non-Euclidean spring embedders. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 11(6), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2005.103
Snyder, J. P. (1987). Map projections: A working manual (U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1395). U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1395 Listed as a standard source for the stereographic projection (bibliography checked on the USGS publication page and Crossref, 2026-09-24).
Gansner, E. R., Koren, Y., & North, S. (2005). Graph drawing by stress majorization. In Graph Drawing (GD 2004) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3383, pp. 239–250). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-31843-9_25
Venturini, T., Jacomy, M., & Jensen, P. (2021). What do we see when we look at networks: Visual network analysis, relational ambiguity, and force-directed layouts. Big Data & Society, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211018488
Krzywinski, M., Birol, I., Jones, S. J. M., & Marra, M. A. (2012). Hive plots: Rational approach to visualizing networks. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 13(5), 627–644. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbr069

Swarm algorithms (slime mould, school, cells, foam, brushstroke, dry garden, coral, roots)

Rules in which each individual reacts only to its neighbours or its surroundings, run live in the browser. Where each source is born comes from the same plane force layout as the marbling.

Jones, J. (2010). Characteristics of pattern formation and evolution in approximations of Physarum transport networks. Artificial Life, 16(2), 127–153. https://doi.org/10.1162/artl.2010.16.2.16202 The full text was read in the author’s institutional repository copy (https://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/15260), where the particle rules and default parameters were checked (2026-09-25).
Couzin, I. D., Krause, J., James, R., Ruxton, G. D., & Franks, N. R. (2002). Collective memory and spatial sorting in animal groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 218(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2002.3065 The original model is in three-dimensional space; this site runs the same three-zone rules on a plane.
Reynolds, C. W. (1987). Flocks, herds and schools: A distributed behavioral model. Computer Graphics (Proceedings of SIGGRAPH ’87), 21(4), 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/37401.37406
Schmickl, T., Stefanec, M., & Crailsheim, K. (2016). How a life-like system emerges from a simplistic particle motion law. Scientific Reports, 6, 37969. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37969
Secord, A. (2002). Weighted Voronoi stippling. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Non-Photorealistic Animation and Rendering (NPAR ’02) (pp. 37–43). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/508530.508537
Lloyd, S. (1982). Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28(2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1982.1056489
Du, Q., Faber, V., & Gunzburger, M. (1999). Centroidal Voronoi tessellations: Applications and algorithms. SIAM Review, 41(4), 637–676. https://doi.org/10.1137/S0036144599352836
O’Keeffe, K. P., Hong, H., & Strogatz, S. H. (2017). Oscillators that sync and swarm. Nature Communications, 8, 1504. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01190-3
Vicsek, T., Czirók, A., Ben-Jacob, E., Cohen, I., & Shochet, O. (1995). Novel type of phase transition in a system of self-driven particles. Physical Review Letters, 75(6), 1226–1229. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1226
Jobard, B., & Lefer, W. (1997). Creating evenly-spaced streamlines of arbitrary density. In W. Lefer & M. Grave (Eds.), Visualization in Scientific Computing ’97 (pp. 43–55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-6876-9_5
Slavkov, I., Carrillo-Zapata, D., Carranza, N., Diego, X., Jansson, F., Kaandorp, J., Hauert, S., & Sharpe, J. (2018). Morphogenesis in robot swarms. Science Robotics, 3(25), eaau9178. https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aau9178
Israeli, A., & Jalfon, M. (1990). Token management schemes and random walks yield self-stabilizing mutual exclusion. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC ’90) (pp. 119–131). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/93385.93409

Algorithms for the stills (bundle, arcs, river)

Holten, D. (2006). Hierarchical edge bundles: Visualization of adjacency relations in hierarchical data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 12(5), 741–748. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2006.147
Holten, D., & van Wijk, J. J. (2009). Force-directed edge bundling for graph visualization. Computer Graphics Forum, 28(3), 983–990. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8659.2009.01450.x
Wattenberg, M. (2002). Arc diagrams: Visualizing structure in strings. In IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis 2002) (pp. 110–116). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.2002.1173155
Byron, L., & Wattenberg, M. (2008). Stacked graphs: Geometry & aesthetics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 14(6), 1245–1252. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2008.166
Havre, S., Hetzler, E., Whitney, P., & Nowell, L. (2002). ThemeRiver: Visualizing thematic changes in large document collections. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 8(1), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1109/2945.981848

The drop formula of the marbling

Lu, S., Jaffer, A., Jin, X., Zhao, H., & Mao, X. (2012). Mathematical marbling. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 32(6), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2011.51 According to its abstract, the paper simulates marbling with closed-form expressions. The full text was not available, so the drop formula was checked on the co-author Jaffer’s explanatory page (2026-09-24).
Jaffer, A. (2010). Dropping paint [Web page]. Topological Computer Graphics. https://people.csail.mit.edu/jaffer/Marbling/Dropping-Paint Read the page and checked the drop formula and the explanation that a drop preserves area (2026-09-24; copyright 2006, 2010).

Curves and numerical methods

Catmull, E., & Rom, R. (1974). A class of local interpolating splines. In R. E. Barnhill & R. F. Riesenfeld (Eds.), Computer aided geometric design (pp. 317–326). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-079050-0.50020-5
Barry, P. J., & Goldman, R. N. (1988). A recursive evaluation algorithm for a class of Catmull-Rom splines. In Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH ’88) (pp. 199–204). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/54852.378511
Yuksel, C., Schaefer, S., & Keyser, J. (2009). On the parameterization of Catmull-Rom curves. In 2009 SIAM/ACM Joint Conference on Geometric and Physical Modeling (pp. 47–53). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1629255.1629262
Yuksel, C., Schaefer, S., & Keyser, J. (2011). Parameterization and applications of Catmull–Rom curves. Computer-Aided Design, 43(7), 747–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.08.008
de Boor, C. (1978). A practical guide to splines. Springer. ISBN 978-0-387-90356-9
Bartels, R. H., Beatty, J. C., & Barsky, B. A. (1987). An introduction to splines for use in computer graphics and geometric modeling. Morgan Kaufmann. ISBN 0-934613-27-3
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. (1992). Numerical recipes in C (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43108-5
Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Chapman & Hall. ISBN 0-412-24620-1
Batchelor, G. K. (2000). An introduction to fluid dynamics. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1967) https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800955 The link is the DOI of the Cambridge Mathematical Library edition (2000). Listed as the standard source for the stream function of the marbling.

Paper and ink (the light look)

The washi and ink of the light look are an approximation on the image, drawing on these studies; no flow of water or ink through the paper is computed for the bleed. The way the washi fibers are drawn is this site’s own design (no peer-reviewed model of washi fibers was found).

Curtis, C. J., Anderson, S. E., Seims, J. E., Fleischer, K. W., & Salesin, D. H. (1997). Computer-generated watercolor. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH ’97) (pp. 421–430). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/258734.258896
Chu, N. S.-H., & Tai, C.-L. (2005). MoXi: Real-time ink dispersion in absorbent paper. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 24(3), 504–511. https://doi.org/10.1145/1073204.1073221
Guo, Q., & Kunii, T. L. (1991). Modeling the diffuse paintings of “sumie.” In T. L. Kunii (Ed.), Modeling in computer graphics (pp. 329–338). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-68147-2_21 Content checked through an index abstract and the related-work section of Curtis et al. (1997).

Precedents in art

Lima, M. (2011). Visual complexity: Mapping patterns of information. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 978-1-56898-936-5
Lupi, G., & Posavec, S. (2016). Dear data. Princeton Architectural Press. ISBN 978-1-61689-532-7
Posavec, S. (n.d.). Writing without words [Artwork]. Stefanie Posavec. https://www.stefanieposavec.com/archive/writing-without-words
Lombardi, M. (n.d.). Narrative structures [Drawings]. Whitney Museum of American Art. https://whitney.org/artists/7340
Viégas, F. B., & Wattenberg, M. (2007). Artistic data visualization: Beyond visual analytics. In Online Communities and Social Computing (OCSC 2007) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 182–191). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73257-0_21
Kosara, R. (2007). Visualization criticism: The missing link between information visualization and art. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference Information Visualization (IV ’07) (pp. 631–636). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2007.130
Viégas, F., & Wattenberg, M. (2012). Wind map [Interactive artwork]. hint.fm. http://hint.fm/wind/ Launch year (2012) and authors checked on the official page (it does not open over https, so the http address is given).