AI Avatar Of Deceased

AI Avatar Of Deceased — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Document classification

  Document classification or document categorization is a problem in library science, information science and computer science. The task is to assign a document to one or more classes or categories. This may be done "manually" (or "intellectually") or algorithmically. The intellectual classification of documents has mostly been the province of library science, while the algorithmic classification of documents is mainly in information science and computer science. The problems are overlapping, however, and there is therefore interdisciplinary research on document classification. The documents to be classified may be texts, images, music, etc. Each kind of document possesses its special classification problems. When not otherwise specified, text classification is implied. Documents may be classified according to their subjects or according to other attributes (such as document type, author, printing year etc.). In the rest of this article only subject classification is considered. There are two main philosophies of subject classification of documents: the content-based approach and the request-based approach. == "Content-based" versus "request-based" classification == Content-based classification is classification in which the weight given to particular subjects in a document determines the class to which the document is assigned. It is, for example, a common rule for classification in libraries, that at least 20% of the content of a book should be about the class to which the book is assigned. In automatic classification it could be the number of times given words appears in a document. Request-oriented classification (or -indexing) is classification in which the anticipated request from users is influencing how documents are being classified. The classifier asks themself: “Under which descriptors should this entity be found?” and “think of all the possible queries and decide for which ones the entity at hand is relevant” (Soergel, 1985, p. 230). Request-oriented classification may be classification that is targeted towards a particular audience or user group. For example, a library or a database for feminist studies may classify/index documents differently when compared to a historical library. It is probably better, however, to understand request-oriented classification as policy-based classification: The classification is done according to some ideals and reflects the purpose of the library or database doing the classification. In this way it is not necessarily a kind of classification or indexing based on user studies. Only if empirical data about use or users are applied should request-oriented classification be regarded as a user-based approach. == Classification versus indexing == Sometimes a distinction is made between assigning documents to classes ("classification") versus assigning subjects to documents ("subject indexing") but as Frederick Wilfrid Lancaster has argued, this distinction is not fruitful. "These terminological distinctions,” he writes, “are quite meaningless and only serve to cause confusion” (Lancaster, 2003, p. 21). The view that this distinction is purely superficial is also supported by the fact that a classification system may be transformed into a thesaurus and vice versa (cf., Aitchison, 1986, 2004; Broughton, 2008; Riesthuis & Bliedung, 1991). Therefore, assigning a subject term to a document in an index is equivalent to assigning that document to the class of documents indexed by that term (all documents indexed or classified as X belong to the same class of documents). == Automatic document classification (ADC) == Automatic document classification tasks can be divided into three sorts: supervised document classification where some external mechanism (such as human feedback) provides information on the correct classification for documents, unsupervised document classification (also known as document clustering), where the classification must be done entirely without reference to external information, and semi-supervised document classification, where parts of the documents are labeled by the external mechanism. There are several software products under various license models available. === Techniques === Automatic document classification techniques include: Artificial neural network Concept Mining Decision trees such as ID3 or C4.5 Expectation maximization (EM) Instantaneously trained neural networks Latent semantic indexing Multiple-instance learning Naive Bayes classifier Natural language processing approaches Rough set-based classifier Soft set-based classifier Support vector machines (SVM) K-nearest neighbour algorithms tf–idf == Applications == Classification techniques have been applied to spam filtering, a process which tries to discern E-mail spam messages from legitimate emails email routing, sending an email sent to a general address to a specific address or mailbox depending on topic language identification, automatically determining the language of a text genre classification, automatically determining the genre of a text readability assessment, automatically determining the degree of readability of a text, either to find suitable materials for different age groups or reader types or as part of a larger text simplification system sentiment analysis, determining the attitude of a speaker or a writer with respect to some topic or the overall contextual polarity of a document. health-related classification using social media in public health surveillance article triage, selecting articles that are relevant for manual literature curation, for example as is being done as the first step to generate manually curated annotation databases in biology

  Read more →
• 

  Source criticism

  Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex

  Read more →
• 

  Knuth–Eve algorithm

  In computer science, the Knuth–Eve algorithm is an algorithm for polynomial evaluation. It preprocesses the coefficients of the polynomial to reduce the number of multiplications required at runtime. Ideas used in the algorithm were originally proposed by Donald Knuth in 1962. His procedure opportunistically exploits structure in the polynomial being evaluated. In 1964, James Eve determined for which polynomials this structure exists, and gave a simple method of "preconditioning" polynomials (explained below) to endow them with that structure. == Algorithm == === Preliminaries === Consider an arbitrary polynomial p ∈ R [ x ] {\displaystyle p\in \mathbb {R} [x]} of degree n {\displaystyle n} . Assume that n ≥ 3 {\displaystyle n\geq 3} . Define m {\displaystyle m} such that: if n {\displaystyle n} is odd then n = 2 m + 1 {\displaystyle n=2m+1} , and if n {\displaystyle n} is even then n = 2 m + 2 {\displaystyle n=2m+2} . Unless otherwise stated, all variables in this article represent either real numbers or univariate polynomials with real coefficients. All operations in this article are done over R {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} } . Again, the goal is to create an algorithm that returns p ( x ) {\displaystyle p(x)} given any x {\displaystyle x} . The algorithm is allowed to depend on the polynomial p {\displaystyle p} itself, since its coefficients are known in advance. === Overview === ==== Key idea ==== Using polynomial long division, we can write p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + ( β x + γ ) , {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+(\beta x+\gamma ),} where x 2 − α {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha } is the divisor. Picking a value for α {\displaystyle \alpha } fixes both the quotient q {\displaystyle q} and the coefficients in the remainder β {\displaystyle \beta } and γ {\displaystyle \gamma } . The key idea is to cleverly choose α {\displaystyle \alpha } such that β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} , so that p ( x ) = q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α ) + γ . {\displaystyle p(x)=q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha )+\gamma .} This way, no operations are needed to compute the remainder polynomial, since it's just a constant. We apply this procedure recursively to q {\displaystyle q} , expressing p ( x ) = ( ( q ( x ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α m ) + γ m ) ⋯ ) ⋅ ( x 2 − α 1 ) + γ 1 . {\displaystyle p(x)=\left(\left(q(x)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{m})+\gamma _{m}\right)\cdots \right)\cdot (x^{2}-\alpha _{1})+\gamma _{1}.} After m {\displaystyle m} recursive calls, the quotient q {\displaystyle q} is either a linear or a quadratic polynomial. In this base case, the polynomial can be evaluated with (say) Horner's method. ==== "Preconditioning" ==== For arbitrary p {\displaystyle p} , it may not be possible to force β = 0 {\displaystyle \beta =0} at every step of the recursion. Consider the polynomials p e {\displaystyle p^{e}} and p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} with coefficients taken from the even and odd terms of p {\displaystyle p} respectively, so that p ( x ) = p e ( x 2 ) + x ⋅ p o ( x 2 ) . {\displaystyle p(x)=p^{e}(x^{2})+x\cdot p^{o}(x^{2}).} If every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real, then it is possible to write p {\displaystyle p} in the form given above. Each α i {\displaystyle \alpha _{i}} is a different root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} , counting multiple roots as distinct. Furthermore, if at least n − 1 {\displaystyle n-1} roots of p {\displaystyle p} lie in one half of the complex plane, then every root of p o {\displaystyle p^{o}} is real. Ultimately, it may be necessary to "precondition" p {\displaystyle p} by shifting it — by setting p ( x ) ← p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x)\gets p(x+t)} for some t {\displaystyle t} — to endow it with the structure that most of its roots lie in one half of the complex plane. At runtime, this shift has to be "undone" by first setting x ← x − t {\displaystyle x\gets x-t} . === Preprocessing step === The following algorithm is run once for a given polynomial p {\displaystyle p} . At this point, the values of x {\displaystyle x} that p {\displaystyle p} will be evaluated on are not known. ==== Better choice of t ==== While any t ≥ Re ( r 2 ) {\displaystyle t\geq {\text{Re}}(r_{2})} can work, it is possible to remove one addition during evaluation if t {\displaystyle t} is also chosen such that two roots of p ( x + t ) {\displaystyle p(x+t)} are symmetric about the origin. In that case, α 1 {\displaystyle \alpha _{1}} can be chosen such that the shifted polynomial has a factor of x 2 − α 1 {\displaystyle x^{2}-\alpha _{1}} , so γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . It is always possible to find such a t {\displaystyle t} . One possible algorithm for choosing t {\displaystyle t} is: === Evaluation step === The following algorithm evaluates p {\displaystyle p} at some, now known, point x {\displaystyle x} . Assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally, γ 1 = 0 {\displaystyle \gamma _{1}=0} . So, the final iteration of the loop can instead run y ← y ⋅ ( s − α i ) , {\displaystyle y\gets y\cdot (s-\alpha _{i}),} saving an addition. == Analysis == In total, evaluation using the Knuth–Eve algorithm for a polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} requires n {\displaystyle n} additions and ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ + 2 {\displaystyle \lfloor n/2\rfloor +2} multiplications, assuming t {\displaystyle t} is chosen optimally. No algorithm to evaluate a given polynomial of degree n {\displaystyle n} can use fewer than n {\displaystyle n} additions or fewer than ⌈ n / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \lceil n/2\rceil } multiplications during evaluation. This result assumes only addition and multiplication are allowed during both preprocessing and evaluation. The Knuth–Eve algorithm is not well-conditioned.

  Read more →
• 

  Overcategorization

  Overcategorization or category clutter is a phenomenon during classification where too many categories or classes are assigned to a document, record, or item. Overcategorization is related to the library and information science (LIS) concepts of document classification and subject indexing. It is also related to online shopping where excessive product categories can overwhelm users with too many choices or make it more difficult for customers to find the products they need. Although these categories are intended to improve organization and ease of navigation when shipping online, too many categories can lower customer satisfaction, increase difficulty navigating the online store, and reduce future shopping intentions. In LIS, the ideal number of terms that should be assigned to classify an item are measured by the variables precision and recall. Assigning few category labels that are most closely related to the content of the item being classified will result in searches that have high precision, I.e., where a high proportion of the results are closely related to the query. Assigning more category labels to each item will reduce the precision of each search, but increase the recall, retrieving more relevant results. Related LIS concepts include exhaustivity of indexing and information overload. == Basic principles == If too many categories are assigned to a given document, the implications for users depend on how informative the links are. If the user is able to distinguish between useful and not useful links, the damage is limited: The user only wastes time selecting links. In many cases, however, the user cannot judge whether or not a given link will turn out to be fruitful. In that case he or she has to follow the link and to read or skim another document. The worst case scenario is, of course, that even after reading the new document the user is unable to decide whether or not it might be useful if its subject matter is not thoroughly investigated. Overcategorization also has another unpleasant implication: It makes the system (for example in Wikipedia) difficult to maintain in a consistent way. If the system is inconsistent, it means that when the user considers the links in a given category, he or she will not find all documents relevant to that category. Basically, the problem of overcategorization should be understood from the perspective of relevance and the traditional measures of recall and precision. If too few relevant categories are assigned to a document, recall may decrease. If too many non-relevant categories are assigned, precision becomes lower. The hard job is to say which categories are fruitful or relevant for future use of the document.

  Read more →
• 

  WebPlus

  Serif WebPlus was a website design program for Microsoft Windows, developed by the software company, Serif. It allows users to design, create and upload their website onto the internet without any knowledge of HTML or other web technologies. Much like Microsoft Word, WebPlus uses WYSIWYG drag and drop editing to add and position text, images and links as they would appear on the finished web page. Once a user has designed their site, WebPlus can preview the site in a web browser before uploading the site using the in-built FTP. The software comes with a variety of pre-designed sample websites containing Filler text like Lorem ipsum, which can be used as a template for quickly designing a site. It also provides drawing tools for creating and editing buttons and web graphics. == Free WebPlus Starter Edition == Previously Serif had made available feature limited Starter Editions of their software, based on older versions, which could be obtained and used free of charge. For WebPlus the final free edition was based on version X5 and this was released in September 2012. This continued to be available from Serif's server until it was withdrawn around March 2016. WebPlus was then only available as a paid-for version X8. == Program Withdrawal == In March 2016, Serif announced that WebPlus X8 would be the final version, and that there were no current plans to design an application to replace it. Sales of WebPlus X8 by Serif were ended around December 2016. In early 2018, Serif announced that Serif Web Resources, hosted on Serif servers and required to implement some advanced web-site functionality in WebPlus created sites, would no longer work after 31 August 2018. In 2018, Serif also shutdown the servers that generated the "Plus" software registration numbers on-line from the product version and the individual generated installation number. Serif revealed the alternative was to use a universal master registration number, which is 881887. This is known to work with post 2003 Serif "Plus" software (e.g. verified to work with PagePlus v5.02). However, later Serif "Plus" software still registers itself automatically if within a certain recent period of a previous Serif software registration on the same PC. == Supported platforms == WebPlus was developed for Microsoft Windows "Win32" graphical desktop interface and is fully compatible with Windows XP, Windows Vista (32/64bit), Windows 7 (32/64bit) and Windows 8. == Features == Web hosting to upload websites to the internet with the address www.sitename.webplus.net and email [email protected]. E-Commerce tool to create online stores with providers such as PayPal. Form wizard generates online forms to collect information from website visitors. Add blogs, forums, hit counters, online polls and content management systems to websites using Smart Objects. Google Maps tool embeds maps and optional navigation markers within a website. Site navigation bars adopt a website's structure providing a tool for navigating around the website. Photo gallery groups a collection of images together and displays them as an animated slideshow. Search engine optimization (SEO) tools optimise a websites search ranking with the likes of Google, Yahoo! and Bing. Collect website metrics such as page popularity and number of website hits using Google Analytics. WebPlus X5 introduced a button studio for creating button graphics. Restrict access to specific pages on a website with a secure member's area. WebPlus automatically converts images and graphics into a web targeted format, optimising them for fast download. Embed YouTube videos within a web page. Add animated effects to a website with Animated GIFs, Animated Marquees or by importing Flash videos. Stream news and information feeds to a website using RSS and podcasts. Automated Site Checker analyses and corrects potential problems with a website. AdSense tool incorporates Google AdSense advertisements into a website In-built FTP transfers files onto a web server, uploading a website to the internet. In-built Basic Photo Editor the PhotoLab can make automatic adjustments and "Quick Fix's" to photos. From X5, WebPlus offers image editing and filters, through its PhotoLab and also provides a dedicated background-removal tool in the form of Cutout Studio. Display images, Flash videos and web pages using animated Lightboxes. Filter Effects can be applied to the graphical objects, giving convincing, realistic effects such as glass, metallic, plastic and other 2D/3D filters. WebPlus also provides QuickShapes for creating button and web graphics. These predefined shapes can be quickly modified with sliders to adjust certain parameters, for example creating rounded rectangles, etc. Shapes include: rectangles, ellipses, stars, spirals, cogs, petals, etc.

  Read more →
• 

  List of library and information science journals

  This list covers the journals, magazines, periodicals already published and continuing in the discipline of library and information science (LIS). It doesn't include ceased titles or predatory journals. Titles listed were taken from various scholarly sources, UGC Care and Wikipedia articles. == LIS journal prestige as assessed by LIS faculty == In a 2013 article by Laura Manzari, 232 LIS faculty members from ALA-accredited information science programs ranked the most prestigious journals in library and information science. The following journals were ranked in the top ten most prestigious: Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology The Library Quarterly Annual Review of Information Science and Technology Journal of Documentation Library Trends Library and Information Science Research Information Processing and Management Journal of Education for Library and Information Science Education College & Research Libraries First Monday (journal) A subsequent study by Safón and Docampo in 2023 identified impactful LIS journals based on their influence on papers published in other LIS publications. Journals listed in the top ten in this study that did not appear in Manzari's list include: Scientometrics International Journal of Information Management Quantitative Science Studies MIS Quarterly Information and Management Journal of the Association for Information Systems Journal of Informetrics The Journal of Academic Librarianship == India == Annals of Library and Information Studies. (Pub: CSIR-NIScPR ), Formerly: Annals of Library Science. ISSN 0003-4835. (1954-) OPEN ACCESS Collnet Journal of Scientrometrics and Information Management (Pub: Taru Publications, Online through Taylor and Francis) ISSN: 0973-7766 Online 2168-930X. College Libraries (Pub: West Bengal College Librarians’ Association (WBCLA) ISSN 0972-1975, Quarterly DESIDOC Journal of Library and Information Technology (DJLIT) (Formerly: DESIDOC Bulletin 0970-8154, DESIDOC Bulletin of Information Technology. 0971-4383/0974-0643) (Pub: Defence Scientific Information & Documentation Centre) ISSN: 0974-0643, ISSN: 0976-4658 (O), Bi-monthly, OPEN ACCESS. Grandhalaya Sarvaswam (Bilingual: Telugu & English) [Pub: Andhra Pradesh Library Association, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India] (1915–) Gyankosh: Journal of Library and Information Management. (Pub: Integrated Academy Of Management And Technology. Through: Indian Journals.Com). ISSN: 2229-4023 (P), 2249-3182. Half yearly. IASLIC Bulletin (Pub: Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres) ISSN: 0018-8411. Quarterly (1956-) IASLIC Newsletter (Pub: Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres. (Pub: Indian Association of Special Libraries and Information Centres) ISSN 0018-845X. Monthly. (1966-) INFLIBNET Newsletter. (Pub: INFLIBNET). Monthly. Informatics Studies. (Pub: Centre For Informatics Research And Development). Quarterly. Through: Indian journals.com. ISSN: 2583-8994 (Online), 2320-530X (Print) ISST Journal of Advances in Librarianship (Pub:Intellectuals Society for Socio-Techno Welfare) ISSN: 0976-9021. Semiannual. Journal of Advanced Research in Library and Information Science. (JALIS Publishers). 4/year. ISSN 2277-2219. Journal of Indian Library Association (Pub: Indian Library Association). ISSN (P) 2277-5145 O) 2456-513X. Quarterly. (1965-). Journal of Scientometric Research. (Pub: Phcog.Net). ISSN (P) 2321-6654, (O) 2320-0057]; Frequency : Triannual. KELPRO Bulletin (Pub: Kerala Library Professionals' Organisation - KELPRO). ISSN 0975-4911( Print),2582-497X (O).(1993-) KIIT Journal of Library and Information Management (Pub: KIIT University, online through Indian Journals.com) Half yearly. ISSN: 2348-0858. Library Herald. (Pub: Delhi Library Association - DLA). Quarterly. ISSN: 0024-2292. Library Progress (International). (Pub: Bpas Publications, Through: ). Half yearly. ISSN: 0970-1052. (O) ISSN: 2320-317X. (1981-) Pearl: A Journal of Library and Information Science. (Pub: University Library Teacher's Association of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad), ISSN: 0973-7081 (print), 0975-6922 (online). Quarterly. RBU Journal of Library and Information Science. (Pub: Rabindra Bharati University).ISSN: 0972-2750. Annual. SALIS Journal of Information Management and Technology - SJIMT. (Pub: Society for the Advancement of Library and Information Science). Half-yearly. ISSN 0975-4105. SALIS Journal of Library and Information Science - SJLIS: an International Journal. (Pub: Society for the Advancement of Library and Information Science). Half-yearly. ISSN: 0973-3108. SRELS journal of Information and Knowledge (Formerly: Library Science with a Slant to Documentation, ISSN: 0024-2543; Library Science with a Slant to Documentation and Information Studies ISSN: 0970-6089; SRELS Journal of Information Management ISSN: ). Quarterly. ISSN: 2583-9314 (O) World Digital Libraries. Half yearly. ISSN: 0974-567X (P), 0975-7597 (O). == Other countries == African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science Art Libraries Journal (Cambridge University Press) Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Communications in Information Literacy Cataloging & Classification Quarterly Catholic Library Association Children and Libraries Code4Lib Journal College & Research Libraries Communications in Information Literacy Disability in Library and Information Studies Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship El Profesional de la Información (es) (EPI) (Formerly Information World en Español) Evidence Based Library and Information Practice (journal) Faslname-ye Ketab Florida Libraries. Florida Library Association. Georgia Library Quarterly. Quarterly. (Pub: Georgia Library Association). Hipertext.net IFLA Journal In the Library with the Lead Pipe Information & Culture International Journal of Information Retrieval Research (IJIRR) Information Processing and Management Information Research Information Sciences (journal) Information Visualization (journal) Information, Communication & Society International Journal of Geographical Information Science Information Research: An International Electronic Journal (IR) Internet Research (journal) Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship Italian Journal of Library and Information Studies (JLIS.it) JLIS.it Journal of Documentation (JDoc) Journal of Information Ethics Journal of Information Science (JIS) Journal of Information Technology Journal of Informetrics Journal of Librarianship and Information Science Journal of Library & Information Studies - JLIS. (Pub: National Taiwan University) Journal of Library Administration Journal of Religious & Theological Information Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (Formerly Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology) (JASIST) Journal of the Medical Library Association Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association (Pub: Canadian Health Libraries Association). Knowledge Organization (journal) Knowledge Quest. (Pub: American Association of School Librarians) Library and Information Science Abstracts Library Literature and Information Science Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts Library Literature and Information Science Retrospective Library Review (journal) Library Trends Libri (journal) Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science MLA Forum New Century Library New Review of Children's Literature and Librarianship Notes (journal) Portal – Libraries and the Academy Progressive Librarian, Progressive Librarians Guild Reference and User Services Quarterly Reference Services Review Research Evaluation (journal) Scientometrics (journal) Serials Review South African Journal of Libraries and Information Science The Charleston Advisor The Christian Librarian, from the Association of Christian Librarians The Journal of Academic Librarianship The Library Quarterly (LQ) The Public-Access Computer Systems Review TripleC Webolog

  Read more →
• 

  Mobile content management system

  A mobile content management system (MCMs) is a type of content management system (CMS) capable of storing and delivering content and services to mobile devices, such as mobile phones, smart phones, and PDAs. Mobile content management systems may be discrete systems, or may exist as features, modules or add-ons of larger content management systems capable of multi-channel content delivery. Mobile content delivery has unique, specific constraints including widely variable device capacities, small screen size, limitations on wireless bandwidth, sometimes small storage capacity, and (for some devices) comparatively weak device processors. Demand for mobile content management increased as mobile devices became increasingly ubiquitous and sophisticated. MCMS technology initially focused on the business to consumer (B2C) mobile market place with ringtones, games, text-messaging, news, and other related content. Since, mobile content management systems have also taken root in business-to-business (B2B) and business-to-employee (B2E) situations, allowing companies to provide more timely information and functionality to business partners and mobile workforces in an increasingly efficient manner. A 2008 estimate put global revenue for mobile content management at US$8 billion. == Key features == === Multi-channel content delivery === Multi-channel content delivery capabilities allow users not to manage a central content repository while simultaneously delivering that content to mobile devices such as mobile phones, smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices. Content can be stored in a raw format (such as Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, PDF, Text, HTML etc.) to which device-specific presentation styles can be applied. === Content access control === Access control includes authorization, authentication, access approval to each content. In many cases the access control also includes download control, wipe-out for specific user, time specific access. For the authentication, MCM shall have basic authentication which has user ID and password. For higher security many MCM supports IP authentication and mobile device authentication. === Specialized templating system === While traditional web content management systems handle templates for only a handful of web browsers, mobile CMS templates must be adapted to the very wide range of target devices with different capacities and limitations. There are two approaches to adapting templates: multi-client and multi-site. The multi-client approach makes it possible to see all versions of a site at the same domain (e.g. sitename.com), and templates are presented based on the device client used for viewing. The multi-site approach displays the mobile site on a targeted sub-domain (e.g. mobile.sitename.com). === Location-based content delivery === Location-based content delivery provides targeted content, such as information, advertisements, maps, directions, and news, to mobile devices based on current physical location. Currently, GPS (global positioning system) navigation systems offer the most popular location-based services. Navigation systems are specialized systems, but incorporating mobile phone functionality makes greater exploitation of location-aware content delivery possible.

  Read more →
• 

  Basic Formal Ontology

  Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a top-level ontology developed by Barry Smith and colleagues to promote interoperability among domain ontologies. The BFO methodology accomplishes this through a process of downward population. BFO is a formal ontology. The structure of BFO is based on a division of entities into two disjoint categories of continuant and occurrent, the former consists of objects and spatial regions, the latter contains processes conceived as extended through (or spanning) time. BFO thereby seeks to consolidate both time and space within a single framework A guide to building BFO-conformant domain ontologies was published by MIT Press in 2015. In 2021, the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 Information Technology — Top-level Ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) was published by the Joint Technical Committee of the International Standards Organization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 21838 is a multi-part standard. Part 1 of the standard specifies the requirements that must be met if an ontology is to be classified as a top-level ontology by the standard. == History == BFO arose against the background of research in ontologies in the domain of geospatial information science by David Mark, Pierre Grenon, Achille Varzi and others, with a special role for the study of vagueness and of the ways sharp boundaries in the geospatial and other domains are created by fiat. BFO has passed through four major releases. 2001: release of BFO 1 2007: release of BFO 1.1 2015: release of BFO 2.0 2020: release of BFO 2020 2021: release of BFO 2020 as an ISO/IEC Standard The current revision was released in 2020, and this forms the basis of the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2, which was released by the Joint Committee of the International Standards Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission in 2021. == Applications == BFO has been adopted as a foundational ontology by over 650 ontology projects, principally in the areas of biomedical ontology, security and defense (intelligence) ontology, and industry ontologies. Example applications of BFO can be seen in the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). In January 2024, BFO and the Common Core Ontologies (CCO), a suite of BFO-extension ontologies, were adopted as the "baseline standards for formal DOD and IC ontology" development work in the DOD and Intelligence Community. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the chief data officers of the DOD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.

  Read more →
• 

  The AI Con

  The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.

  Read more →
• 

  EdgeRank

  EdgeRank is the name commonly given to the algorithm that Facebook uses to determine what articles should be displayed in a user's News Feed. As of 2011, Facebook has stopped using the EdgeRank system and uses a machine learning algorithm that, as of 2013, takes more than 100,000 factors into account. EdgeRank was developed and implemented by Serkan Piantino. == Formula and factors == In 2010, a simplified version of the EdgeRank algorithm was presented as: ∑ e d g e s e u e w e d e {\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm {edges\,} e}u_{e}w_{e}d_{e}} where: u e {\displaystyle u_{e}} is user affinity. w e {\displaystyle w_{e}} is how the content is weighted. d e {\displaystyle d_{e}} is a time-based decay parameter. User Affinity: The User Affinity part of the algorithm in Facebook's EdgeRank looks at the relationship and proximity of the user and the content (post/status update). Content Weight: What action was taken by the user on the content. Time-Based Decay Parameter: New or old. Newer posts tend to hold a higher place than older posts. Some of the methods that Facebook uses to adjust the parameters are proprietary and not available to the public. A study has shown that it is possible to hypothesize a disadvantage of the "like" reaction and advantages of other interactions (e.g., the "haha" reaction or "comments") in content algorithmic ranking on Facebook. The "like" button can decrease the organic reach as a "brake effect of viral reach". The "haha" reaction, "comments" and the "love" reaction could achieve the highest increase in total organic reach. == Impact == EdgeRank and its successors have a broad impact on what users actually see out of what they ostensibly follow: for instance, the selection can produce a filter bubble (if users are exposed to updates which confirm their opinions etc.) or alter people's mood (if users are shown a disproportionate amount of positive or negative updates). As a result, for Facebook pages, the typical engagement rate is less than 1% (or less than 0.1% for the bigger ones), and organic reach 10% or less for most non-profits. As a consequence, for pages, it may be nearly impossible to reach any significant audience without paying to promote their content.

  Read more →
• 

  AI-driven design automation

  AI-driven design automation is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to automate and improve different parts of the electronic design automation (EDA) process. It is particularly important in the design of integrated circuits (chips) and complex electronic systems, where it can potentially increase productivity, decrease costs, and speed up design cycles. AI Driven Design Automation uses several methods, including machine learning, expert systems, and reinforcement learning. These are used for many tasks, from planning a chip's architecture and logic synthesis to its physical design and final verification. == History == === 1980s–1990s: Expert systems and early experiments === The use of AI for design automation originated in the 1980s and 1990s, mainly with the creation of expert systems. These systems tried to capture the knowledge and practical rules used by human design experts, and used these rules, along with reasoning engines, to direct the design process. A notable early project was the ULYSSES system from Carnegie Mellon University. ULYSSES was a CAD tool integration environment that let expert designers turn their design methods into scripts that could be run automatically. It treated design tools as sources of knowledge that a scheduler could manage. Another example was the ADAM (Advanced Design AutoMation) system at the University of Southern California, which used an expert system called the Design Planning Engine. This engine figured out design strategies on the fly and handled different design jobs by organizing specialized knowledge into structured formats called frames. Other systems like DAA (Design Automation Assistant) used a rule-based approach for specific jobs, such as register transfer level (RTL) design for systems like the IBM 370. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University also created TALIB, an expert system for mask layout that used over 1200 rules, and EMUCS/DAA for CPU architectural design which used about 70 rules. These projects showed that AI worked better for problems where relatively few rules were required to describe much larger amounts of data. At the same time, there was a surge of tools called silicon compilers like MacPitts, Arsenic, and Palladio. They used algorithms and search techniques to explore different design paradigms. This was another way to automate design, even if it was not always based on expert systems. Early tests with neural networks in VLSI design also happened during this time, although they were not as common as systems based on rules. === 2000s: Introduction of machine learning === In the 2000s, interest in AI for design automation increased. This was mostly because of better machine learning (ML) algorithms and more available data from design and manufacturing. For example, they were used to model and reduce the effects of small manufacturing differences in semiconductor devices. This became very important as the size of components on chips became smaller. The large amount of data created during chip design provided the foundation needed to train smarter ML models. This allowed for predicting outcomes and optimizing in areas that were hard to automate before. === 2016–2020: Reinforcement learning and large scale initiatives === A major turning point happened in the mid to late 2010s, sparked by successes in other areas of AI. The success of DeepMind's AlphaGo in mastering the game of Go inspired researchers. They began to apply reinforcement learning (RL) to difficult EDA problems. These problems often require searching through many options and making a series of decisions. In 2018, the U.S. DARPA started the Intelligent Design of Electronic Assets (IDEA) program. A main goal of IDEA was to create a fully automated layout generator that required no human intervention, able to produce a chip design ready for manufacturing from RTL specifications in 24 hours. Another big initiative was the OpenROAD project, a large effort under IDEA led by UC San Diego with industry and university partners, aimed to build an open source, independent toolchain. It used machine learning, parallelization and divide and conquer approaches. A much-publicized but controversial demonstration of RL's potential came from Google researchers between 2020 and 2021. They created a deep reinforcement learning method for planning the layout of a chip, known as floorplanning. They reported that this method created layouts that were as good as or better than those made by human experts, and it did so in less than six hours. This method used a type of network called a graph convolutional neural network. It showed that it could learn general patterns that could be applied to new problems, getting better as it saw more chip designs. The technology was later used to design Google's Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) accelerators. However, in the original paper, the improvement (if any) from AI was not demonstrated. There was no comparison with existing non-AI tools performing the same task, and since the data is proprietary, no ability for anyone else to perform this comparison. Various efforts to reproduce the AI algorithm, and compare its results with various commercial and academic tools, have yielded mixed results with no conclusive advantage to AI. === 2020s: Autonomous systems and agents === Entering the 2020s, the industry saw the commercial launch of autonomous AI driven EDA systems. For example, Synopsys launched DSO.ai (Design Space Optimization AI) in early 2020, calling it the first autonomous artificial intelligence application for chip design in the industry. This system uses reinforcement learning to search for the best ways to optimize a design within the huge number of possible solutions, trying to improve power, performance, and area (PPA). By 2023, DSO.ai had been used to produce over 100 commercial chips, showing mainstream adoption. Synopsys later grew its AI tools into a suite called Synopsys.ai. The goal was to use AI in the entire EDA workflow, including verification and testing. These advancements, which combine modern AI methods with cloud computing and large data resources, have led to talks about a new phase in EDA. Industry experts and participants sometimes call this 'EDA 4.0'. This new era is defined by the widespread use of AI and machine learning to deal with growing design complexity, automate more of the design process, and help engineers handle the huge amounts of data that EDA tools create. The purpose of EDA 4.0 is to optimize product performance, get products to market faster and make development and manufacturing smoother through intelligent automation. == Applications == Artificial intelligence (AI) is now used in many stages of the electronic design workflow. It aims to improve productivity, get better results, and handle the growing complexity of modern integrated circuits. AI helps designers from the very first ideas about architecture all the way to manufacturing and testing. === High level synthesis and architectural exploration === In the first phases of chip design, AI helps with High Level Synthesis (HLS) and exploring different system level design options (DSE). These processes are key for turning general ideas into detailed hardware plans. AI algorithms, often using supervised learning, are used to build simpler, substitute models. These models can quickly guess important design measurements like area, performance, and power for many different architectural options or HLS settings. For example, the Ithemal tool uses deep neural networks to estimate how fast basic code blocks will run, which helps in making processor architecture decisions. Similarly, PRIMAL uses machine learning estimate power use at the register transfer level (RTL), giving early information about how much power the chip will use. Reinforcement learning (RL) and Bayesian optimization are also used to guide the DSE process. They help search through the many parameters to find the best HLS settings or architectural details like cache sizes. LLMs are also being tested for creating architectural plans or initial C code for HLS, as seen with GPT4AIGChip. === Logic synthesis and optimization === Logic synthesis starts from a high level hardware description and generates an optimized list of electronic gates, known as a gate level netlist, that is ready for placement, routing, and then construction in a specific manufacturing process. AI methods help with different parts of this process, including logic optimization, technology mapping, and making improvements after mapping. Supervised learning, especially with Graph Neural Networks (GNNs), is good at handling data or problems that can be represented as graphs. Since circuit diagrams are instances of directed graphs, supervised learning can help create models that predict design properties like power or error rates in circuits. In logic synthesis and optimization reinforcement learning is used to perform logic optimization directly. In some cases ag

  Read more →
• 

  Documentation science

  Documentation science is the study of the recording and retrieval of information. It includes methods for storing, retrieving, and sharing of information captured on physical as well as digital documents. This field is closely linked to the fields of library science and information science but has its own theories and practices. The term documentation science was coined by Belgian lawyer and peace activist Paul Otlet. He is considered to be the forefather of information science. He along with Henri La Fontaine laid the foundations of documentation science as a field of study. Professionals in this field are called documentalists. Over the years, documentation science has grown to become a large and important field of study. Evolving from traditional practices like archiving and retrieval to modern theories about the nature of documents, novel methods for organizing digital information, and applications in libraries, research, healthcare, business, and technology and more. This field continues to evolve in the digital age. == Developments in documentation science == 1895: The International Institute of Bibliography (originally Institut International de Bibliographie, IIB) was established on 12 September 1895, in Brussels, Belgium by Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine. It aimed to catalog all recorded knowledge using a universal classification system now known as the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). 1931: International Institute of Bibliography (originally Institut International de Bibliographie, IIB) was renamed The International Institute for Documentation, (Institut International de Documentation, IID). 1934: Paul Otlet envisioned a “radiated library,” a global network of interconnected documents accessible from anywhere via telecommunication. This early idea is now seen as a forerunner of the internet. 1937: American Documentation Institute was founded (1968 nameshift to American Society for Information Science). 1951: Suzanne Briet published Qu'est-ce que la documentation? where she proposed that “a document is evidence in support of a fact,” expanding the definition to include objects such as animals in zoos when they are part of a scientific study. This was a significant theoretical shift in defining documents. 1965-1990: Documentation departments were established, for example, large research libraries, online computer retrieval systems and more. The persons doing the searches were called documentalists. But with the appearance of first CD-ROM databases in the mid-1980s and later the internet in 1990s, these intermediary searches decreased and most such departments closed or merged with other departments. 1996: "Dokvit", Documentation Studies, was established in 1996 at the University of Tromsø in Norway. 2001: The Document Academy was established. It is an international network that celebrates documentation. It was conducted by The Program of Documentation Studies, University of Tromsø, Norway and The School of Information Management and Systems, UC Berkeley. 2003: The first Document Research Conference (DOCAM), a series of conferences made by the Document Academy. DOCAM '03 (2003) was held 13–15 August 2003 at The School of Information Management and Systems (SIMS) at the University of California, Berkeley. 2007: Michael Buckland, Ronald Day, and Birger Hjørland expanded the theoretical foundations of documentation science. They researched and explored documents to be social artifacts, the role of ideology in classification, and how documents influenced knowledge systems. 2010s: The concept of post-documentation or “documentality” began in the 2010s, which focused on how digital traces (e.g., tweets, logs) function as documents without traditional physical form. This led to new thinking in document theory. 2016–present: The Document Academy's DOCAM conferences have continued, offering ongoing developments in the theory and practice of documentation. Themes include affect, memory, activism, and born-digital records. 2017: The journal Information Research published special issues addressing “document theory,” including views on documentation in virtual environments and digital archives. 2020–present: The growth of research data management (RDM) and open science has made documentation practices central to data sharing, metadata standards, and reproducibility in scientific work. == Theoretical foundations == Documentation science has some deep theories that explain what a document is, how people use documents, and how they are organized. These concepts were introduced by scholars who have not only studied libraries, but also philosophy, language, and social sciences. Suzanne Briet described a document as “any material form of evidence” that is made to be used as proof or to share information. An antelope in a zoo, for example, can be a document because it is being studied, classified, and described. Documents are not just things or materials but are also shaped by society. Michael Buckland noted that documents have meaning only when people agree they are useful or valid as information. He explained a document becomes a document when someone decides to use it as evidence. Ronald Day wrote about how documentation is not neutral, it can be influenced by power, ideology, and politics. He claimed that classification systems, like how libraries organize books, are not just technical tools. They also show what kinds of knowledge are seen as more important than others. In recent years, new theories have been introduced, like “documentality” by Maurizio Ferraris. He proposed that a document does not have to be a paper or file, it can also be something digital like a tweet, a database entry, or a log file, as long as it leaves a trace that can be looked at later. This theory helps explain modern digital documents. == Methodologies and practice == Documentation science includes many methods that help people collect, organize, store, and find information. These practices are used in libraries, archives, research labs, companies, and now also in online systems. === Collecting and creating documents === In the past, documentation work included gathering books, articles, reports, and other printed materials. People created records of these materials manually, using catalog cards, indexes, or bibliographies. Paul Otlet’s work with the Universal Bibliographic Repertory is one example. He created millions of card entries to organize knowledge from around the world. Today, documents are not only created by humans. Computers and machines also generate documents, like log files, metadata, and sensor data. These need new tools and methods for collection and management. === Organizing information === Organizing documents has always been a foundational element of documentation science. Methods like classification (dividing things into groups) and indexing (making lists of topics or keywords) help individuals find what they need. A widely used system is the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) developed by Otlet and La Fontaine. Another is the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) used in the majority of U.S. libraries. Indexing can be performed by humans or by software programs that read the text and add tags to documents. Metadata is also used to describe documents. Metadata is “data about data” like the title, author, date, and subject of a document. Standards like Dublin Core are used in digital libraries to keep metadata consistent. === Retrieval and access === One of the main objectives of documentation is helping users find the right document. This is called information retrieval. In the past, this meant using catalog drawers or printed indexes. Today, people use search engines, databases, and digital libraries. Modern retrieval tools use Boolean logic, ranking algorithms, and sometimes machine learning to show the most useful results first. This is part of what is studied in both documentation science and information retrieval. === Preservation and archiving === Documents require long-term storage. This is called preservation of documents. Printed documents can be damaged by light, pests, or even time on the other hand digital documents can be deemed worthless if formats become outdated or storage facilities fail. Archivists use methods like migration, which includes moving files to new formats, and emulation, which replicates obsolete systems, to preserve materials. These methods and tools are ever changing as new technologies develop. But the main objective of documentation has remained the same, which is to keep information safe, organized, and easy to find. == Documentation in the digital age == With the expansion of the internet, computers, and cloud storage, documents are no longer just books, papers, or reports. They can now be emails, tweets, videos, websites, databases, or even log files created by machines. === Born-digital documents === Many documents today are created directly in digital form. These are called born-digit

  Read more →
• 

  History of machine translation

  Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co

  Read more →
• 

  Umbrella review

  In medical research, an umbrella review is a review of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. They may also be called overviews of reviews, reviews of reviews, summaries of systematic reviews, or syntheses of reviews. Umbrella reviews are among the highest levels of evidence currently available in medicine. By summarizing information from multiple overview articles, umbrella reviews make it easier to review the evidence and allow for comparison of results between each of the individual reviews. Umbrella reviews may address a broader question than a typical review, such as discussing multiple different treatment comparisons instead of only one. They are especially useful for developing guidelines and clinical practice, and when comparing competing interventions.

  Read more →
• 

  Subject indexing

  Subject indexing is the act of describing or classifying a document by index terms, keywords, or other symbols in order to indicate what different documents are about, to summarize their contents or to increase findability. In other words, the objective is to identify and describe the subject of documents. Indexes are constructed, separately, on three distinct levels: terms in a document, such as a book; objects in a collection, such as a library; and documents (such as books and articles) within a field of knowledge. Subject indexing is used in information retrieval especially to create bibliographic indexes to retrieve documents on a particular subject. Examples of academic indexing services are Zentralblatt MATH, Chemical Abstracts, and PubMed. The index terms were mostly assigned by experts but author keywords are also common. The process of indexing begins with any analysis of the subject of the document. The indexer must then identify terms that appropriately identify the subject, either by extracting words directly from the document or assigning words from a controlled vocabulary. The terms in the index are then presented in a systematic order. Indexers must decide how many terms to include and how specific the terms should be. Together this gives a depth of indexing. == Subject analysis == The first step in indexing is to decide on the subject matter of the document. In manual indexing, the indexer would consider the subject matter in terms of answer to a set of questions such as "Does the document deal with a specific product, condition or phenomenon?". As the analysis is influenced by the knowledge and experience of the indexer, it follows that two indexers may analyze the content differently and so come up with different index terms. This will impact on the success of retrieval. === Automatic vs. manual subject analysis === Automatic indexing follows set processes of analyzing frequencies of word patterns and comparing results to other documents in order to assign to subject categories. This requires no understanding of the material being indexed. This leads to more uniform indexing but at the expense of the true meaning being interpreted. A computer program will not understand the meaning of statements and may therefore fail to assign some relevant terms or assign incorrectly. Human indexers focus their attention on certain parts of the document such as the title, abstract, summary and conclusions, as analyzing the full text in depth is costly and time-consuming. An automated system takes away the time limit and allows the entire document to be analyzed, but also has the option to be directed to particular parts of the document. == Term selection == The second stage of indexing involves the translation of the subject analysis into a set of index terms. This can involve extracting from the document or assigning from a controlled vocabulary. With the ability to conduct a full text search widely available, many people have come to rely on their own expertise in conducting information searches and full text search has become very popular. Subject indexing and its experts, professional indexers, catalogers, and librarians, remains crucial to information organization and retrieval. These experts understand controlled vocabularies and are able to find information that cannot be located by full text search. The cost of expert analysis to create subject indexing is not easily compared to the cost of hardware, software and labor to manufacture a comparable set of full-text, fully searchable materials. With new web applications that allow every user to annotate documents, social tagging has gained popularity especially in the Web. One application of indexing, the book index, remains relatively unchanged despite the information revolution. === Extraction/Derived indexing === Extraction indexing involves taking words directly from the document. It uses natural language and lends itself well to automated techniques where word frequencies are calculated and those with a frequency over a pre-determined threshold are used as index terms. A stop-list containing common words (such as "the", "and") would be referred to and such stop words would be excluded as index terms. Automated extraction indexing may lead to loss of meaning of terms by indexing single words as opposed to phrases. Although it is possible to extract commonly occurring phrases, it becomes more difficult if key concepts are inconsistently worded in phrases. Automated extraction indexing also has the problem that, even with use of a stop-list to remove common words, some frequent words may not be useful for allowing discrimination between documents. For example, the term glucose is likely to occur frequently in any document related to diabetes. Therefore, use of this term would likely return most or all the documents in the database. Post-coordinated indexing where terms are combined at the time of searching would reduce this effect but the onus would be on the searcher to link appropriate terms as opposed to the information professional. In addition terms that occur infrequently may be highly significant for example a new drug may be mentioned infrequently but the novelty of the subject makes any reference significant. One method for allowing rarer terms to be included and common words to be excluded by automated techniques would be a relative frequency approach where frequency of a word in a document is compared to frequency in the database as a whole. Therefore, a term that occurs more often in a document than might be expected based on the rest of the database could then be used as an index term, and terms that occur equally frequently throughout will be excluded. Another problem with automated extraction is that it does not recognize when a concept is discussed but is not identified in the text by an indexable keyword. Since this process is based on simple string matching and involves no intellectual analysis, the resulting product is more appropriately known as a concordance than an index. === Assignment indexing === An alternative is assignment indexing where index terms are taken from a controlled vocabulary. This has the advantage of controlling for synonyms as the preferred term is indexed and synonyms or related terms direct the user to the preferred term. This means the user can find articles regardless of the specific term used by the author and saves the user from having to know and check all possible synonyms. It also removes any confusion caused by homographs by inclusion of a qualifying term. A third advantage is that it allows the linking of related terms whether they are linked by hierarchy or association, e.g. an index entry for an oral medication may list other oral medications as related terms on the same level of the hierarchy but would also link to broader terms such as treatment. Assignment indexing is used in manual indexing to improve inter-indexer consistency as different indexers will have a controlled set of terms to choose from. Controlled vocabularies do not completely remove inconsistencies as two indexers may still interpret the subject differently. == Index presentation == The final phase of indexing is to present the entries in a systematic order. This may involve linking entries. In a pre-coordinated index the indexer determines the order in which terms are linked in an entry by considering how a user may formulate their search. In a post-coordinated index, the entries are presented singly and the user can link the entries through searches, most commonly carried out by computer software. Post-coordination results in a loss of precision in comparison to pre-coordination. == Depth of indexing == Indexers must make decisions about what entries should be included and how many entries an index should incorporate. The depth of indexing describes the thoroughness of the indexing process with reference to exhaustivity and specificity. === Exhaustivity === An exhaustive index is one which lists all possible index terms. Greater exhaustivity gives a higher recall, or more likelihood of all the relevant articles being retrieved, however, this occurs at the expense of precision. This means that the user may retrieve a larger number of irrelevant documents or documents which only deal with the subject in little depth. In a manual system a greater level of exhaustivity brings with it a greater cost as more man-hours are required. The additional time taken in an automated system would be much less significant. At the other end of the scale, in a selective index only the most important aspects are covered. Recall is reduced in a selective index as if an indexer does not include enough terms, a highly relevant article may be overlooked. Therefore, indexers should strive for a balance and consider what the document may be used. They may also have to consider the implications of time and expense. === Specificity === The specificity describes how closel

  Read more →