[IAEP] Feedback request for new SOM variant

[Gary C Martin]

I've been putting in some more time on the SOM code the last couple of  
weeks (high resolution contour lines being one improvement). I wanted  
to bounce 2 (rather low-res) maps of this weeks IAEP content off the  
list for feedback. The first (2009-January-24-30-3-mean) uses the same  
fully normalised procedure as per the last month of maps (i.e height  
== term link density); the second (2009-January-24-30-3-corrected) has  
an identical cluster layout, but has its topographic height re- 
adjusted to bring back in the term frequency (i.e height == term link  
density * term frequency). I think this 2nd map gives us the  
undistorted term layout as seen in maps of the past month, while  
allowing term frequency to have some influence again over the  
topography (maps last year all had term frequency frequency).

Best of both worlds?

I'd like to roll with the new version (2009-January-24-30-3- 
corrected), any strong opinions/objections? I'm not sure who is  
looking/using these (the main goal for them was as an overview and/or  
allow reflection of the previous week's discussion).

Regards,
--Gary

P.S. Two maps below are identical other than the topographic  
colorisation and a different auto-selected centre point.

P.P.S Past SOMs and information at http://sugarlabs.org/go/Sugar_Labs/SOM

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2009-January-24-30-3-mean.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 64168 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090201/3e9f7af5/attachment-0002.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2009-January-24-30-3-corrected.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 62561 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090201/3e9f7af5/attachment-0003.jpg 
-------------- next part --------------