31:Tb1d,chart = { const DEFAULT_OPACITY = 0.35 const svg = d3.select('#sankey-canvas') .style("width", "100%") .style("height", "auto"); const {nodes, links} = sankey(data); const focusNode = hoveredNode => { console.log(hoveredNode) d3.selectAll(".link-path") .filter(link => { // Keep link if it's source is hoveredNode const linkSourceIsHoveredNode = link.source.id === hoveredNode.id // Keep link if it's TARGET is in hoveredNode.targetLinks const targetIds = getTargetIds(hoveredNode) const linkTargetIsAlsoTargetOfHoveredNode = targetIds.has(link.target.id) debugger return linkSourceIsHoveredNode || linkTargetIsAlsoTargetOfHoveredNode }) .attr("stroke-opacity",1) } // Append Rectangles for each node svg.append("g") .attr("stroke", "#000") .selectAll("rect") .data(nodes) .enter().append("rect") .attr("x", d => d.x0) .attr("y", d => d.y0) .attr("height", d => d.y1 - d.y0) .attr("width", d => d.x1 - d.x0) .attr("fill", d => color(d.name)) .on('mouseover', focusNode) .on('mouseleave', d => d3.selectAll('.link-path').attr('stroke-opacity', DEFAULT_OPACITY)) .append("title") .text(d => `${d.name}\n${format(d.value)}`); const getTargetIds = hoveredNode => { const targetIds = [] hoveredNode.targetLinks.forEach(link => { targetIds.push(link.target.id) }) return new Set(targetIds) } const link = svg.append("g") .attr("fill", "none") .attr("stroke-opacity", DEFAULT_OPACITY) .selectAll("g") .data(links) .enter().append("g") .style("mix-blend-mode", "multiply"); const gradient = link.append("linearGradient") .attr("id", d => (d.uid = DOM.uid("link")).id) .attr("gradientUnits", "userSpaceOnUse") .attr("x1", d => d.source.x1) .attr("x2", d => d.target.x0); gradient.append("stop") .attr("offset", "0%") .attr("stop-color", d => color(d.source.name)); gradient.append("stop") .attr("offset", "100%") .attr("stop-color", d => color(d.target.name)); link.append("path") .attr("d", d3.sankeyLinkHorizontal()) .attr("stroke", d => d.uid) .attr("stroke-width", d => Math.max(1, d.width)) .attr("class", "link-path"); link.append("title") .text(d => `${d.source.name} → ${d.target.name}\n${format(d.value)}`); svg.append("g") .style("font", "10px sans-serif") .selectAll("text") .data(nodes) .enter().append("text") .attr("x", d => d.x0 < width / 2 ? d.x1 + 6 : d.x0 - 6) .attr("y", d => (d.y1 + d.y0) / 2) .attr("dy", "0.35em") .attr("text-anchor", d => d.x0 < width / 2 ? "start" : "end") .text(d => `${d.value} ${d.name}`); return svg.node(); }32:T42e,data = { // Types of nodes: // A. "Complainant [student, staff, uknown etc]" // B. "Respondant [student, staff, uknown etc]" // C. "[offenses]" const COMPLAINANT = 'Complainant' let currId = 0 const nodesDict = {} const links = [] stanford_data.forEach(d => { // Create (and possibly add) Person node const nodeName = `${d.role} ${d.position}` if (!nodesDict[nodeName]) { nodesDict[nodeName] = { id: currId, name: nodeName } currId++ } // Create (and possibly add) Offense node const offense = d.offense if (!nodesDict[offense]) { nodesDict[offense] = { id: currId, name: offense } currId++ } const personId = nodesDict[nodeName].id const offenseId = nodesDict[offense].id const source = d.role === COMPLAINANT ? personId : offenseId const target = d.role === COMPLAINANT ? offenseId : personId const link = { source: source, target: target, value: +d.count } links.push(link) }) return {nodes: Object.values(nodesDict), links: links} }33:T19f5,TITLE_IX_DEMOGRAPHICS_CSV = `role,offense,position,count Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Staff,28 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Academic staff,1 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Faculty,1 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Postdocs,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Graduate students,13 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Undergraduates,4 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Unknown,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (workplace),External party,6 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Staff,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Academic staff,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Faculty,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Postdocs,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Graduate students,10 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Undergraduates,19 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Unknown,0 Complainant,Sexual Harassment (student setting),External party,6 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Staff,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Academic staff,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Faculty,1 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Postdocs,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Graduate students,3 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Undergraduates,20 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Unknown,1 Complainant,Nonconsensual Intercourse,External party,4 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Staff,1 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Academic staff,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Faculty,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Postdocs,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Graduate students,5 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Undergraduates,10 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,Unknown,0 Complainant,Nonconsensual Touching,External party,0 Complainant,Stalking,Staff,0 Complainant,Stalking,Academic staff,0 Complainant,Stalking,Faculty,1 Complainant,Stalking,Postdocs,1 Complainant,Stalking,Graduate students,8 Complainant,Stalking,Undergraduates,10 Complainant,Stalking,Unknown,0 Complainant,Stalking,External party,0 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Staff,0 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Academic staff,0 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Faculty,1 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Postdocs,2 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Graduate students,2 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Undergraduates,6 Complainant,Relationship Violence,Unknown,0 Complainant,Relationship Violence,External party,0 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Staff,0 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Academic staff,1 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Faculty,0 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Postdocs,0 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Graduate students,4 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Undergraduates,4 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Unknown,0 Complainant,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",External party,1 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Staff,0 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Academic staff,0 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Faculty,0 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Postdocs,0 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Graduate students,2 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Undergraduates,14 Complainant,Uncategorizable,Unknown,1 Complainant,Uncategorizable,External party,1 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Staff,29 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Academic staff,2 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Faculty,7 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Postdocs,4 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Graduate students,3 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Undergraduates,0 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),Unknown,6 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (workplace),External party,7 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Staff,0 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Academic staff,0 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Faculty,0 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Postdocs,0 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Graduate students,6 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Undergraduates,14 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),Unknown,2 Respondent,Sexual Harassment (student setting),External party,11 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Staff,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Academic staff,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Faculty,1 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Postdocs,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Graduate students,4 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Undergraduates,12 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,Unknown,6 Respondent,Nonconsensual Intercourse,External party,6 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Staff,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Academic staff,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Faculty,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Postdocs,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Graduate students,2 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Undergraduates,6 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,Unknown,0 Respondent,Nonconsensual Touching,External party,6 Respondent,Stalking,Staff,1 Respondent,Stalking,Academic staff,1 Respondent,Stalking,Faculty,1 Respondent,Stalking,Postdocs,1 Respondent,Stalking,Graduate students,5 Respondent,Stalking,Undergraduates,5 Respondent,Stalking,Unknown,0 Respondent,Stalking,External party,6 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Staff,0 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Academic staff,0 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Faculty,0 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Postdocs,0 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Graduate students,1 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Undergraduates,6 Respondent,Relationship Violence,Unknown,0 Respondent,Relationship Violence,External party,5 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Staff,0 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Academic staff,2 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Faculty,0 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Postdocs,0 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Graduate students,0 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Undergraduates,3 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",Unknown,3 Respondent,"Violation of a directive, Retaliation, Other",External party,2 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Staff,0 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Academic staff,0 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Faculty,0 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Postdocs,0 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Graduate students,0 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Undergraduates,7 Respondent,Uncategorizable,Unknown,2 Respondent,Uncategorizable,External party,5`34:[] 2f:{"title":"Understanding Stanford's Sexual Assault Investigation Process -- 3 factors that drive confusion & controversy","cells":[{"id":241,"value":"md`# *Understanding Stanford's Sexual Assault Investigation Process -- 3 factors that drive confusion & controversy*\n\n_Note:_ __These were part of a larger project__, but the work here provides a sample of some the writing & data visuaization I directly lead and created.\n\nEach visualization explores an answer to the following question: \n\n## *What makes the Stanford Title IX investigation process so difficult to navigate, and so hotly contested?*`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":335,"value":"html `

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":363,"value":"md `# 1. A tangle of Involved Parties`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":0,"value":"md`## Who accused whom in 2016/17?\n\nTo understand the complexity of the Title IX process, you must first realize how complex the web of complaints is itself.\n\nThis visualization outlines the number of complaints of sexual misconduct (from *complainants* on the left) to the accused (*respondents* on the right), via the specific *type of assault* in the center. Data is from the 2016-17 school year.\n\n__Notice htat, while reported offenses span the entire university, they involve Undergraduates predominantly and disproportionally.__\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":215,"value":"html`\n\n\n

Complainant (alleged victim)

Offense

Respondent (accused)

\n\n\n\n\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":333,"value":"html `

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":354,"value":"md `# 2. A Mess of Definitions`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":249,"value":"md `## *So, what happened?* Depends who you're talking to...\n\nRegardless of how Stanford, or any other institution, handles a report of sexual assault, a lack of consistent terminology virtually guarentees confusion for all parties.\n\nWhile victims may be still making sense of the incident, the current processes and definitions of national, local, and educational instutions means what happened may fall under entirely different names -- and processess -- depending who they are talking with.\n\n__Note: In the following diagrams, \"Clery\" refers to *The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act* passed in 1990,__ a federal statute requiring colleges and universities participating in federal financial aid programs to maintain and disclose campus crime statistics and security information\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":263,"value":"md `## Involved parties face a three seperate systems of defining assault:\n\nThey will have to describe their case in terms of each of these systems unique, conficting definitions, depending on context.`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":252,"value":"html `

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":258,"value":"md `### An attempt to merge the three systems reveals the complex overlap -- in particular conficting definitions.\n\nFor example, \"Sexual Assault\" is a catch all term for Clery, but refers to incredibly narrow definition in Stanford's definitions.\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":260,"value":"html `

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":330,"value":"html `

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":383,"value":"md `# 3. Lack of Reporting`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":298,"value":"md `## Clery data for Stanford shows increasing numbers of reported assaults, but actual incidents rate is likely much greater due to lack of reporting\n\nThe disparity between student surveys and actual reports of assault are huge: the vast majority of cases go unreported. As such, it's unclear if the increase comes from students simply choosing to report more of their cases, or an increase in incidents.\n\nFrom interviews with students, the reasons for not reporting were largely consistent: confusion about the consequences and a sense of distrust of the reporting process meant alleged victims felt they would face more challenges reporting than not.\n`\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":290,"value":"html `\n\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":308,"value":"html`

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":380,"value":"md `# 4. Stanford's judicial process is complex, difficult to understand, and at times unpredictable`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":273,"value":"md `## 16% of cases in 2016/17 found the accused guilty of violating university policy. But the data, and *process*, can be misleading.\n\nRather than a binary, \"guilty\" or \"not guilty\" verdict, the outcome of Stanford's investigations varies widely, and can shift dramatically based on dicisions by staff or students.\n\nIn severe cases, Stanford may skip the process entirely, and defer the case to local police.\n\nIn others, the alleged victim and accused may choose to forego formal investigation, and resolve matters with an informal \"University Intervention\" where staff work to mediate the issue.\n\nAll in all, data and research into the process corroborate student hisitence to report -- once reported, alleged victims face a long, uncertain process.\n`\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":275,"value":"html `\n\n`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":279,"value":"md `## Walkthrough tool\n\nI also created [a walkthrough tool](https://codepen.io/davidnmora/full/xXvYeP) to understand the decisions that must be made throughout the proces.`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":450,"value":"html`

`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":447,"value":"md`# Appendix: data, code, & imports`","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":468,"value":"### Sankey diagram","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md"},{"id":11,"value":"$31","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":22,"value":"sankey = {\n const sankey = d3.sankey()\n .nodeWidth(15)\n .nodePadding(10)\n .extent([[1, 1], [width - 1, height - 5]]);\n return ({nodes, links}) => sankey({\n nodes: nodes.map(d => Object.assign({}, d)),\n links: links.map(d => Object.assign({}, d))\n });\n}","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":13,"value":"format = {\n const f = d3.format(\",.0f\");\n return d => `${f(d)} TWh`;\n}","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":16,"value":"color = {\n const colorPalette = {\n\tpaloAlto: '#175e54',\n\tgold: '#b26f16',\n\tsandhill: '#b3995d',\n\tcardinalRed: '#8c1515',\n purple: '#53284f',\n lagunita: '#007c92',\n redwood: '#8d3c1e',\n sky: '#0098db',\n poppy: '#e98300',\n}\n\nconst colors = Object.values(colorPalette)\n const color = d3.scaleOrdinal(colors);\n return name => color(name.replace(/ .*/, \"\"));\n}","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":157,"value":"$32","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":150,"value":"// stanford_data = d3.csv('https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vSZsCjw-JuINh14LL1FOQ7RDAxi31HcEhCN1VtWzJrNIH_XNoYFfhSLlGWuS2YmnpYpC3RqWSvuLC0G/pub?gid=1208795492&single=true&output=csv')\nstanford_data = d3dsv.csvParse(TITLE_IX_DEMOGRAPHICS_CSV)\n","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":9,"value":"height = 600","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":95,"value":"width = 964","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":470,"value":"### Demographics data","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"md"},{"id":420,"value":"$33","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":441,"value":"d3dsv = require('d3-dsv')","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"},{"id":7,"value":"d3 = require(\"d3-selection@1\", \"d3-fetch@1\", \"d3-format@1\", \"d3-scale@2\", \"d3-scale-chromatic@1\", \"d3-sankey@0.7\")","pinned":false,"hidden":false,"mode":"ojs"}],"files":"$W34","stdlib":"1","titling":"auto"}