Getting Started

Well you made my morning Ludo, to know that I have been on the right track! hahaha
Ana, although Ludo was unsure at first what you meant, I got it immediately since I had also struggled with the assumption that there would be some parameters. However, a dozen papers later, I have come to realize that this tool gives you a quantitatively derives empirical measure of construct patterns that we previously could only guess at. And only scholars with deep experience could even guess. However, the "interpretation" of the patterns and even determining which set of patterns (e.g., which map) is 'best' must be made using your prior knowledge of the field. This has 2 implications.
First, if you are a doctoral student or someone new to the field or line of inquiry that you are analyzing, it will be more difficult to make these judgments since you are 'low' on tacit knowledge. The good news is that this is also a great way for those scholars to get 'up to speed' in a field because in order to make those judgments you have to examine some selection of the papers or authors comprising a cluster.
Second, if you are already very familiar with the field, the 'sense-making process' will be quite fast when looking at the maps. The only trick is to be sure not to pick the first map that fits to your preconceptions, but rather to examine a number of different maps using different parameters. Actually, in this case the clusters tend to change at the margins rather than in major ways (e.g., 4 vs 5 or 6 clusters).
In conclusion I now find the use of 'qualitative methods of interpretation' of a quantitatively derived set of patterns quite liberating! Good luck and enjoy.