AI Content Improver Free

AI Content Improver Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Co–Star

    Co–Star

    Co–Star is an American astrological social networking service founded in 2017, and headquartered in New York City. Users enter the date, time and place they were born to generate an astrological chart and daily horoscopes, which can be compared with those of other users. == History == The concept for Co-Star began in 2015 when Banu Guler created an astrological chart as a gift. The idea later developed into a mobile application with collaborators Anna Kopp and Ben Weitzman. The app publicly launched in 2017. The app includes astrological readings, charts, and daily push notifications that have been noted for their unconventional tone. In early 2018, the company raised a $750,000 pre-seed round from Female Founders Fund. In 2019, Co–Star raised a $5.2 million seed round from Maveron, Aspect, and 14W. In January 2020, Co–Star for Android was launched to a 120,000-person waitlist—two years after their iOS version. In April 2021, the company announced a $15 million Series A, led by Spark Capital. As of that date, Co–Star reported more than 20 million downloads and increased adoption among young women in the United States. == Features == Co–Star employs artificial intelligence to analyze publicly accessible NASA JPL data and find patterns in a user's transits. Co–Star's algorithm maps human-written snippets of text to planetary movements to display personalized content for each user. That content has been called “slightly robotic,” “wildly beautiful,” “truly insane," “brutally honest,” and compared to “a free therapy session.” In July 2023, Co–Star released an in-app service called The Void that allows users to ask open-ended questions and receive answers informed by Co–Star's astrological database.

    Read more →
  • Source criticism

    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 →
  • Exploratory search

    Exploratory search

    Exploratory search is a specialization of information exploration which represents the activities carried out by searchers who are: unfamiliar with the domain of their goal (i.e. need to learn about the topic in order to understand how to achieve their goal) or unsure about the ways to achieve their goals (either the technology or the process) or unsure about their goals in the first place. Exploratory search is distinguished from known-item search, for which the searcher has a particular target in mind. Consequently, exploratory search covers a broader class of activities than typical information retrieval, such as investigating, evaluating, comparing, and synthesizing, where new information is sought in a defined conceptual area; exploratory data analysis is another example of an information exploration activity. Typically, therefore, such users generally combine querying and browsing strategies to foster learning and investigation. == History == Exploratory search is a topic that has grown from the fields of information retrieval and information seeking but has become more concerned with alternatives to the kind of search that has received the majority of focus (returning the most relevant documents to a Google-like keyword search). The research is motivated by questions like "What if the user doesn't know which keywords to use?" or "What if the user isn't looking for a single answer?" Consequently, research has begun to focus on defining the broader set of information behaviors in order to learn about the situations when a user is, or feels, limited by only having the ability to perform a keyword search. In the last few years, a series of workshops has been held at various related and key events. In 2005, the Exploratory Search Interfaces workshop focused on beginning to define some of the key challenges in the field. Since then a series of other workshops has been held at related conferences: Evaluating Exploratory Search at SIGIR06 and Exploratory Search and HCI at CHI07 (in order to meet with the experts in human–computer interaction). In March 2008, an Information Processing and Management special issue focused particularly on the challenges of evaluating exploratory search, given the reduced assumptions that can be made about scenarios of use. In June 2008, the National Science Foundation sponsored an invitational workshop to identify a research agenda for exploratory search and similar fields for the coming years. == Research challenges == === Important scenarios === With the majority of research in the information retrieval community focusing on typical keyword search scenarios, one challenge for exploratory search is to further understand the scenarios of use for when keyword search is not sufficient. An example scenario, often used to motivate the research by mSpace, states: if a user does not know much about classical music, how should they even begin to find a piece that they might like. Similarly, for patients or their carers, if they don't know the right keywords for their health problems, how can they effectively find useful health information for themselves? === Designing new interfaces === With one of the motivations being to support users when keyword search is not enough, some research has focused on identifying alternative user interfaces and interaction models that support the user in different ways. An example is faceted search which presents diverse category-style options to the users, so that they can choose from a list instead of guess a possible keyword query. Many of the interactive forms of search, including faceted browsers, are being considered for their support of exploratory search conditions. Computational cognitive models of exploratory search have been developed to capture the cognitive complexities involved in exploratory search. Model-based dynamic presentation of information cues are proposed to facilitate exploratory search performance. === Evaluating interfaces === As the tasks and goals involved with exploratory search are largely undefined or unpredictable, it is very hard to evaluate systems with the measures often used in information retrieval. Accuracy was typically used to show that a user had found a correct answer, but when the user is trying to summarize a domain of information, the correct answer is near impossible to identify, if not entirely subjective (for example: possible hotels to stay in Paris). In exploration, it is also arguable that spending more time (where time efficiency is typically desirable) researching a topic shows that a system provides increased support for investigation. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, giving study participants a well specified task could immediately prevent them from exhibiting exploratory behavior. === Models of exploratory search behavior === There have been recent attempts to develop a process model of exploratory search behavior, especially in social information system (e.g., see models of collaborative tagging. The process model assumes that user-generated information cues, such as social tags, can act as navigational cues that facilitate exploration of information that others have found and shared with other users on a social information system (such as social bookmarking system). These models provided extension to existing process model of information search that characterizes information-seeking behavior in traditional fact-retrievals using search engines. Recent development in exploratory search is often concentrated in predicting users' search intents in interaction with the user. Such predictive user modeling, also referred as intent modeling, can help users to get accustomed to a body of domain knowledge and help users to make sense of the potential directions to be explored around their initial, often vague, expression of information needs. == Major figures == Key figures, including experts from both information seeking and human–computer interaction, are: Marcia Bates Nicholas Belkin Gary Marchionini m.c. schraefel Ryen W. White

    Read more →
  • Overcategorization

    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 →
  • Actifsource

    Actifsource

    Actifsource is a domain-specific modeling workbench. It is realized as plug-in for the software development environment Eclipse. Actifsource supports the creation of multiple domain models which can be linked together. It comes with a UML-like graphical editor to create domain-specific languages and a general graphical editor to edit structures in the created languages. It supports code generation using user-defined generic code templates which are directly linked to the domain models. Code generation is integrated into Eclipse's incremental build process. == Interoperability == Actifsource can use models from other modelling tools by importing and exporting the ecore format which is defined by the Eclipse Modeling Framework. == Licensing policy == There are two versions of actifsource available: The free community edition which can be used freely for non-commercial projects and the enterprise edition which contains additional features. The enterprise edition comes with customer support and maintenance for a limited period of time. This package allows the customers to upgrade to new versions and maintenance releases during their support period.

    Read more →
  • Irish logarithm

    Irish logarithm

    The Irish logarithm was a system of number manipulation invented by Percy Ludgate for machine multiplication. The system used a combination of mechanical cams as lookup tables and mechanical addition to sum pseudo-logarithmic indices to produce partial products, which were then added to produce results. The technique is similar to Zech logarithms (also known as Jacobi logarithms), but uses a system of indices original to Ludgate. == Concept == Ludgate's algorithm compresses the multiplication of two single decimal numbers into two table lookups (to convert the digits into indices), the addition of the two indices to create a new index which is input to a second lookup table that generates the output product. Because both lookup tables are one-dimensional, and the addition of linear movements is simple to implement mechanically, this allows a less complex mechanism than would be needed to implement a two-dimensional 10×10 multiplication lookup table. Ludgate stated that he deliberately chose the values in his tables to be as small as he could make them; given this, Ludgate's tables can be simply constructed from first principles, either via pen-and-paper methods, or a systematic search using only a few tens of lines of program code. They do not correspond to either Zech logarithms, Remak indexes or Korn indexes. == Pseudocode == The following is an implementation of Ludgate's Irish logarithm algorithm in the Python programming language: Table 1 is taken from Ludgate's original paper; given the first table, the contents of Table 2 can be trivially derived from Table 1 and the definition of the algorithm. Note since that the last third of the second table is entirely zeros, this could be exploited to further simplify a mechanical implementation of the algorithm.

    Read more →
  • Leiden algorithm

    Leiden algorithm

    The Leiden algorithm is a community detection algorithm developed by Traag et al at Leiden University. It was developed as a modification of the Louvain method. Like the Louvain method, the Leiden algorithm attempts to optimize modularity in extracting communities from networks; however, it addresses key issues present in the Louvain method, namely poorly connected communities and the resolution limit of modularity. == Improvement over Louvain method == Broadly, the Leiden algorithm uses the same two primary phases as the Louvain algorithm: a local node moving step (though, the method by which nodes are considered in Leiden is more efficient) and a graph aggregation step. However, to address the issues with poorly-connected communities and the merging of smaller communities into larger communities (the resolution limit of modularity), the Leiden algorithm employs an intermediate refinement phase in which communities may be split to guarantee that all communities are well-connected. Consider, for example, the following graph: Three communities are present in this graph (each color represents a community). Additionally, the center "bridge" node (represented with an extra circle) is a member of the community represented by blue nodes. Now consider the result of a node-moving step which merges the communities denoted by red and green nodes into a single community (as the two communities are highly connected): Notably, the center "bridge" node is now a member of the larger red community after node moving occurs (due to the greedy nature of the local node moving algorithm). In the Louvain method, such a merging would be followed immediately by the graph aggregation phase. However, this causes a disconnection between two different sections of the community represented by blue nodes. In the Leiden algorithm, the graph is instead refined: The Leiden algorithm's refinement step ensures that the center "bridge" node is kept in the blue community to ensure that it remains intact and connected, despite the potential improvement in modularity from adding the center "bridge" node to the red community. == Graph components == Before defining the Leiden algorithm, it will be helpful to define some of the components of a graph. === Vertices and edges === A graph is composed of vertices (nodes) and edges. Each edge is connected to two vertices, and each vertex may be connected to zero or more edges. Edges are typically represented by straight lines, while nodes are represented by circles or points. In set notation, let V {\displaystyle V} be the set of vertices, and E {\displaystyle E} be the set of edges: V := { v 1 , v 2 , … , v n } E := { e i j , e i k , … , e k l } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&:=\{v_{1},v_{2},\dots ,v_{n}\}\\E&:=\{e_{ij},e_{ik},\dots ,e_{kl}\}\end{aligned}}} where e i j {\displaystyle e_{ij}} is the directed edge from vertex v i {\displaystyle v_{i}} to vertex v j {\displaystyle v_{j}} . We can also write this as an ordered pair: e i j := ( v i , v j ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}e_{ij}&:=(v_{i},v_{j})\end{aligned}}} === Community === A community is a unique set of nodes: C i ⊆ V C i ⋂ C j = ∅ ∀ i ≠ j {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}C_{i}&\subseteq V\\C_{i}&\bigcap C_{j}=\emptyset ~\forall ~i\neq j\end{aligned}}} and the union of all communities must be the total set of vertices: V = ⋃ i = 1 C i {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}V&=\bigcup _{i=1}C_{i}\end{aligned}}} === Partition === A partition is the set of all communities: P = { C 1 , C 2 , … , C n } {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\mathcal {P}}&=\{C_{1},C_{2},\dots ,C_{n}\}\end{aligned}}} == Partition quality == How communities are partitioned is an integral part on the Leiden algorithm. How partitions are decided can depend on how their quality is measured. Additionally, many of these metrics contain parameters of their own that can change the outcome of their communities. === Modularity === Modularity is a highly used quality metric for assessing how well a set of communities partition a graph. The equation for this metric is defined for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = 1 2 m ∑ i j ( A i j − k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q={\frac {1}{2m}}\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-{\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: A i j {\displaystyle A_{ij}} represents the edge weight between nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} ; see Adjacency matrix; k i {\displaystyle k_{i}} and k j {\displaystyle k_{j}} are the sum of the weights of the edges attached to nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} , respectively; m {\displaystyle m} is the sum of all of the edge weights in the graph; c i {\displaystyle c_{i}} and c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} are the communities to which the nodes i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} belong; and δ {\displaystyle \delta } is Kronecker delta function: δ ( c i , c j ) = { 1 if c i and c j are the same community 0 otherwise {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\delta (c_{i},c_{j})&={\begin{cases}1&{\text{if }}c_{i}{\text{ and }}c_{j}{\text{ are the same community}}\\0&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}\end{aligned}}} === Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB) === One of the most well used metrics for the Leiden algorithm is the Reichardt Bornholdt Potts Model (RB). This model is used by default in most mainstream Leiden algorithm libraries under the name RBConfigurationVertexPartition. This model introduces a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } and is highly similar to the equation for modularity. This model is defined by the following quality function for an adjacency matrix, A, as: Q = ∑ i j ( A i j − γ k i k j 2 m ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle Q=\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}-\gamma {\frac {k_{i}k_{j}}{2m}})\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} where: γ {\displaystyle \gamma } represents a linear resolution parameter === Constant Potts Model (CPM) === Another metric similar to RB is the Constant Potts Model (CPM). This metric also relies on a resolution parameter γ {\displaystyle \gamma } The quality function is defined as: H = − ∑ i j ( A i j w i j − γ ) δ ( c i , c j ) {\displaystyle H=-\sum _{ij}(A_{ij}w_{ij}-\gamma )\delta (c_{i},c_{j})} === Understanding Potts Model resolution parameters/Resolution limit === Typically Potts models such as RB or CPM include a resolution parameter in their calculation. Potts models are introduced as a response to the resolution limit problem that is present in modularity maximization based community detection. The resolution limit problem is that, for some graphs, maximizing modularity may cause substructures of a graph to merge and become a single community and thus smaller structures are lost. These resolution parameters allow modularity adjacent methods to be modified to suit the requirements of the user applying the Leiden algorithm to account for small substructures at a certain granularity. The figure on the right illustrates why resolution can be a helpful parameter when using modularity based quality metrics. In the first graph, modularity only captures the large scale structures of the graph; however, in the second example, a more granular quality metric could potentially detect all substructures in a graph. == Algorithm == The Leiden algorithm starts with a graph of disorganized nodes (a) and sorts it by partitioning them to maximize modularity (the difference in quality between the generated partition and a hypothetical randomized partition of communities). The method it uses is similar to the Louvain algorithm, except that after moving each node it also considers that node's neighbors that are not already in the community it was placed in. This process results in our first partition (b), also referred to as P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} . Then the algorithm refines this partition by first placing each node into its own individual community and then moving them from one community to another to maximize modularity. It does this iteratively until each node has been visited and moved, and each community has been refined - this creates partition (c), which is the initial partition of P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} . Then an aggregate network (d) is created by turning each community into a node. P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} is used as the basis for the aggregate network while P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} is used to create its initial partition. Because we use the original partition P {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}} in this step, we must retain it so that it can be used in future iterations. These steps together form the first iteration of the algorithm. In subsequent iterations, the nodes of the aggregate network (which each represent a community) are once again placed into their own individual communities and then sorted according to modularity to form a new P refined {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}_{\text{refined}}} , forming (e) in the above graphic. In the case depicted by the graph, the nodes were already sorted optimally, so no change too

    Read more →
  • Artificial intelligence in architecture

    Artificial intelligence in architecture

    Artificial intelligence in architecture is the use of artificial intelligence in automation, design, and planning in the architectural process or in assisting human skills in the field of architecture. AI has been used by some architects for design, and has been proposed as a way to automate planning and routine tasks in the field. == Implications == === Benefits === Artificial intelligence, according to ArchDaily, is said to potentially significantly augment the architectural profession through its ability to improve the design and planning process as well as increasing productivity. Through its ability to handle a large amount of data, AI is said to potentially allow architects a range of design choices with criteria considerations such as budget, requirements adjusted to space, and sustainability goals calculated as part of the design process. ArchDaily said this may allow the design of optimized alternatives that can then undergo human review. AI tools are also said to potentially allow architects to assimilate urban and environmental data to inform their designs, streamlining initial stages of project planning and increasing efficiency and productivity. The advances in generative design through the input of specific prompts allow architects to produce visual designs, including photorealistic images, and thus render and explore various material choices and spatial configurations. ArchDaily noted this could speed the creative process as well as allow for experimentation and sophistication in the design. Additionally, AI's capacity for pattern recognition and coding could aid architects in organizing design resources and developing custom applications, thus enhancing the efficiency and collaboration between both architects and AI. AI is thought to also be able to contribute to the sustainability of buildings by analyzing various factors and following recommended energy-efficient modifications, thus pushing the industry towards greener practices. The use of AI in building maintenance, project management, and the creation of immersive virtual reality experiences are also thought of as potentially augmenting the architectural design process and workflow. Examples include the use of text-to-image systems such as Midjourney to create detailed architectural images, and the use of AI optimization systems from companies such as Finch3D and Autodesk to automatically generate floor plans from simple programmatic inputs. In contrast to digital-only creative practices, the high materiality of architectural outputs requires transitions from ephemeral digital files to permanent physical structures that are subject to strict safety regulations, material constraints, sensory intuition, and site-specific cultural contexts, making full automation difficult. Early adopters such as architect Stephen Coorlas have actively challenged the boundaries of architectural practice through AI. His early experimental initiative, Speculations on AI and Architecture, confronts the discipline's traditional workflows by training text-to-image AI tools such as Midjourney, Luma AI, and PromeAI to generate more nuanced architectural illustrations including construction documents, architectural details, and assembly sequences for various structures. Coorlas inputs precise terminology and architectural language to provoke the AI into producing axonometric drawings that resemble conventional documentation, then experiments with animating the outputs using AI generated depth maps and other AI image-to-3D wireframe tools. Stephen's inventive process invites architects and designers to reconsider authorship, automation, and the future of visual communication in the built environment. Rather than treating AI as a peripheral tool, Stephen has advocated for AI to be a speculative collaborator capable of engaging with discipline-specific challenges. His work contributes to the growing discourse on generative design, parametric optimization, and the philosophical implications of machine-assisted creativity raising urgent questions about how such technologies will reshape architectural agency, precision, and pedagogy. Another prominent advocate is Architect Andrew Kudless, who in an interview to Dezeen recounted that he uses AI to innovate in architectural design by incorporating materials and scenes not usually present in initial plans, which he believes can significantly alter client presentations. He told Dezeen he believes one should show clients renderings from the onset, with AI assisting in this work, arguing that changes in design should be a positive aspect of the client-designer relationship by actively involving clients in the process. Additionally, Kudless highlighted the AI's potential to facilitate labor in architectural firms, particularly in automating rendering tasks, thus reducing the workload on junior staff while maintaining control over the creative output. === Emergent aesthetics === In an interview for the AItopia series to Dezeen, designer Tim Fu discussed the transformative potential of AI in architecture, and proposed a future where AI could herald a "neoclassical futurist" style, blending the grandeur of classical aesthetics with futuristic design. Through his collaborative project, The AI Stone Carver, Fu showcased how AI can innovate traditional practices by generating design concepts that are then realized through human craftsmanship, such as stone carving by mason Till Apfel. This approach, he believed, celebrated the fusion of diverse architectural styles and also emphasized the unique capabilities of AI in enhancing creative design processes. Fu told Dezeen he envisions the integration of AI in design as a means to revive the ornamentation and detailed aesthetics characteristic of classical architecture, moving away from minimalism, which he said dominates contemporary architecture. He argued that AI's involvement in the ideation phase of design allows for a reversal in the roles of machine and human, enabling architects and designers to focus on creating more intricate and ornamental structures. Fu's optimistic outlook extended to the broader impact of AI on the architectural field, seeing it as an indispensable tool that will shift rather than replace human roles, enriching the field with innovative designs that pay homage to the beauty and qualities of classical architecture not present in contemporary architecture while embracing new technologies. This perspective resonates with designers like Manas Bhatia, whose explorations similarly embrace generative AI as a co-creator and a medium to express ideas, blend architectural traditions, and speculate spatial futures. === Concerns === As AI continues to expand its presence across various industries, its impact on the architectural profession has become a topic of growing discussion. These discussions focus on how AI processes may influence traditional architectural practices, potentially altering job roles, and shaping the nature of creativity. While AI-driven processes may increase efficiency in some aspects of the profession, they also raise questions about the potential loss of unique design perspectives. These thoughts have been countered by many prominent creative figures in the realm of AI architecture, such as Stephen Coorlas, Tim Fu, Hassan Ragab, and Manas Bhatia who have showcased the amplification of creativity in design and potential benefits in terms of restoring creative power to the designer. A key concern is that AI-powered tools could diminish the need for human involvement in specific tasks traditionally performed by architects. This has led to speculation that the profession may increasingly shift toward roles focused on oversight, coordination, and strategic decision-making rather than hands-on design work. In some design scenarios, algorithmically generated solutions can be adjusted to prioritize efficiency and cost-effectiveness, which some argue may overshadow the creative and contextual nuances that define individual architectural styles. As with any discipline though, it has been determined that AI can be configured to provide beneficial results based on inputs and end goals the architect or designer assigns it. There are also concerns about the potential for AI to exacerbate inequalities within the architectural profession. For instance, larger firms with greater resources to invest in advanced AI technologies may gain a competitive edge over smaller firms and independent architects. This dynamic could contribute to industry consolidation, potentially limiting the diversity of architectural practice and stifling innovation. Ethical considerations in regard to cultural sensitivity have also been raised due to the datasets used to train AI. Without proper vetting of data or implementing failsafe overrides, AI generated outcomes can trend toward overly documented and prioritized content.

    Read more →
  • Depop

    Depop

    Depop Limited is a social e-commerce company based in London, with additional offices in Milan and New York City. The company allows users to buy and sell items, which are mostly used and vintage pieces of clothing. == History == Depop was founded in 2011 by entrepreneur Simon Beckerman at an Italian technological incubator and business start-up centre, H-Farm. Beckerman came up with the original outline of the application during his time working on PIG, a fashion magazine based in Italy that he co-founded. The idea was to create a platform where products shown in the magazine could be purchased by users online. This idea turned into a concept similar to a flea market but on the internet, where people could sell their items while also being in control of advertising, public relations, and the creative process behind their accounts. While being financially supported by H-Farm, Beckerman worked within a team to create and lay out the Depop application while exposing it to numerous investors. In 2013, Beckerman became a member of the company's board to help improve the application and business while concurrently ceding his role of CEO. Maria Raga, Depop's co-founder and former CEO, took on the role of vice president of operations in 2014, and in 2016, she became chief executive. According to Raga, the main goal while developing Depop was to become the next Airbnb or Spotify, but to make an impact on fashion. Paolo Barberis and Nana Bianca were two of the first investors in the platform in 2012 with a seed investment. Its headquarters were moved to London in 2012. Depop expanded and opened additional offices in Milan and New York City. Beckerman raised €1 million in funding in October 2013 from Red Circle Investment and brought on Faroese Runar Reistrup as new CEO. In 2015, Depop secured another investment of $8 million from Balderton Capital and HV Capital. In March 2016, former CEO, Runar Reistrup, stated that Depop's growth was achieved through word of mouth. During his time as CEO, this growth involved taking Depop as a startup and working to raise funds to eventually amass a significant user base within the United States. In June 2019, Depop raised $62 million in Series C from General Atlantic to fund its expansion. Previous investors HV Capital, Balderton Capital, Creandum, Octopus Ventures, TempoCap and Sebastian Siemiatkowski also participated. During this time, Depop held workshops and conversations as part of their Depop Live NY events, and the company also opened a London store through their partnership with Selfridges. In 2020, Depop's gross merchandise sales and revenue both more than doubled to $650 million and $70 million respectively. This may be attributed to Depop's responsiveness to user trends, its lack of issues regarding inventory management, and the increase in users looking to resell. As of 2024, Depop has over 35 million users, according to their website. Depop is popular for Gen Z and young millennials, it is the 10th most-visited shopping platform for Gen Z consumers in the US, and, in a poll conducted by The Strategist in 2019, Depop was voted by teenagers as their favorite resale website. === Acquisition by Etsy === In June 2021, Depop was acquired by Etsy for $1.6 billion in cash, making it Etsy's most expensive acquisition; however, Depop continues to operate as a standalone brand independent from Etsy. This means that in addition to Depop keeping its existing team, the company retained its London location. At the time of acquisition, Etsy CEO Josh Silverman’s goal was to counteract the influx of buyers starting to go back to physical shops for their purchases. He saw Depop for its potential as a platform supporting a variety of products and creating a greater community of users. According to Silverman, Depop may expand and improve its services for its significant Gen Z user base. For Etsy, this acquisition maintains the company's foothold in the clothing industry and allows the company to expand its customer base to a younger demographic; at the same time, Depop is now able to make use of Etsy's company operations. When Maria Raga relinquished her position as Depop's CEO in 2022, Etsy assigned the role to Kruti Patel Goyal, who was Etsy's former chief product officer and a leader there for eleven years. When Goyal was appointed president and chief growth officer for Etsy in May, Peter Semple, former chief marketing officer, was assigned CEO of Depop officially on August 1st. === Acquisition by eBay === In February 2026, Etsy announced a proposed sale of Depop to eBay for $1.2 billion that was estimated to close within the year. == Business model == === Selling === Depop operates as a marketplace and social platform, where users can follow friends and other influencers to view their buying and selling activities. Through the platform, users are able to sell branded and designer items, as well as vintage pieces. Depop users are also encouraged by the platform to use other social networking services such as Instagram to promote their shop profiles. Celebrities have resold their own items on Depop, with some donating proceeds to charitable causes. Depop's user interface is modeled after that of Instagram. According to Depop, users who list and sell items provide their own photos with item descriptions. Users also note their designer items' authenticity and if they include any labels, tags, and receipts. These listings will appear in users' feeds. The platform's "Explore" page features items picked out by Depop staff. According to Depop, purchases are made via Apple Pay, Google Pay, credit and debit cards, and Klarna. Depop payments stay in-app, allowing for the company to mediate disputes and process refunds. Depop payments allow sellers to directly receive their payments in their bank account. To get paid by Depop, a seller has to add a bank account and verify their identification by uploading an ID. On July 18, 2024, Depop CEO Kruti Patel Goyal announced the removal of selling fees for US sellers, while maintaining a payment processing fee. This policy adjustment aimed to enhance seller revenue and support the growth of the second-hand market. === Buying === A Depop transaction includes the agreed sale price of the item, shipping fees, VAT or other applicable taxes and duties, and the marketplace fee for buyers in the U.S. or U.K. For international deliveries, packages may be subject to import taxes, customs duties, or fees, payable upon arrival or at checkout if Depop collects the tax on behalf of the buyer. For domestic purchases, relevant taxes may be collected by the seller or charged by the platform at checkout, ensuring no additional taxes are due upon delivery. For users in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, Depop allows users to receive a full refund if their item does not arrive, arrives damaged, or is considerably different from the original when the issue is reported within 30 days. === Competitors === As of June 2021, Depop's competitors include Vinted, a platform founded by Milda Mitkute and Justas Janauskas in 2008 and valued at €3.5 billion, as well as the U.S. resale site Poshmark, valued at $3.5 billion. Additional competitors include Grailed, a peer-to-peer e-commerce site founded in 2014 that is recognized for its high-end second-hand menswear and streetwear, and Vestiaire Collection, a European resale app established in 2009 which specializes in authenticated pre-owned luxury items. The popularity of Depop has negatively impacted traditional second-hand stores, which can struggle to compete due to high labor costs and quality demands. There is an oversupply of clothes with the rise of fast fashion; this has taken a toll on the revenue aspect of the second-hand clothing industry. == Criticism == In November 2019, Business of Fashion reported that users within the Depop app were receiving sexually suggestive messages. In February 2020, Jessica Hamilton, a Depop buyer, reported that she found many scammers on the platform. She noticed this issue after she attempted to purchase a Nintendo Switch from a seller who would suspiciously only accept payment through a direct bank transfer without buyer protection. Hamilton blamed the company for its lack of action and relaxed security measures compared to other e-commerce sites, which made the platform especially susceptible to hackers. Without a clear strategy for managing scams, Depop lost some users' trust because of its negligence. In October 2020, some Depop buyers were tricked into paying sellers directly to bypass Depop's buyer protections, and the Depop sellers then sold those users' information on the dark web. In response, Depop claimed that it would improve security through mandatory password updates and multi-factor authentication. Users have criticized Depop for belatedly taking action against this issue.

    Read more →
  • Documentation science

    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 →
  • ArchiMate

    ArchiMate

    ArchiMate ( AR-ki-mayt) is an open and independent enterprise architecture modeling language to support the description, analysis and visualization of architecture within and across business domains in an unambiguous way. ArchiMate is a technical standard from The Open Group and is based on concepts from the now superseded IEEE 1471 standard. It is supported by various tool vendors and consulting firms. ArchiMate is also a registered trademark of The Open Group. The Open Group has a certification program for ArchiMate users, software tools and courses. ArchiMate distinguishes itself from other languages such as Unified Modeling Language (UML) and Business Process Modeling and Notation (BPMN) by its enterprise modelling scope. Also, UML and BPMN are meant for a specific use and they are quite heavy – containing about 150 (UML) and 250 (BPMN) modeling concepts whereas ArchiMate works with just about 50 (in version 2.0). The goal of ArchiMate is to be ”as small as possible”, not to cover every edge scenario imaginable. To be easy to learn and apply, ArchiMate was intentionally restricted “to the concepts that suffice for modeling the proverbial 80% of practical cases". == Overview == ArchiMate offers a common language for describing the construction and operation of business processes, organizational structures, information flows, IT systems, and technical infrastructure. This insight helps the different stakeholders to design, assess, and communicate the consequences of decisions and changes within and between these business domains. The main concepts and relationships of the ArchiMate language can be seen as a framework, the so-called Archimate Framework: It divides the enterprise architecture into a business, application and technology layer. In each layer, three aspects are considered: active elements, an internal structure and elements that define use or communicate information. One of the objectives of the ArchiMate language is to define the relationships between concepts in different architecture domains. The concepts of this language therefore hold the middle between the detailed concepts, which are used for modeling individual domains (for example, the Unified Modeling Language (UML) for modeling software products), and Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN), which is used for business process modeling. == History == ArchiMate is partly based on the now superseded IEEE 1471 standard. It was developed in the Netherlands by a project team from the Telematica Instituut in cooperation with several Dutch partners from government, industry and academia. Among the partners were Ordina NV, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, the Leiden Institute for Advanced Computer Science (LIACS) and the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI). Later, tests were performed in organizations such as ABN AMRO, the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration and the ABP. The development process lasted from July 2002 to December 2004, and took about 35 person years and approximately 4 million euros. The development was funded by the Dutch government (Dutch Tax and Customs Administration), and business partners, including ABN AMRO and the ABP Pension Fund. In 2008 the ownership and stewardship of ArchiMate was transferred to The Open Group. It is now managed by the ArchiMate Forum within The Open Group. In February 2009 The Open Group published the ArchiMate 1.0 standard as a formal technical standard. In January 2012 the ArchiMate 2.0 standard, and in 2013 the ArchiMate 2.1 standard was released. In June 2016, the Open Group released version 3.0 of the ArchiMate Specification. An update to Archimate 3.0.1 came out in August 2017. Archimate 3.1 was published 5 November 2019. The latest version of the ArchiMate Specification is version 3.2 released October 2022. Version 3.0 adds enhanced support for capability-oriented strategic modelling, new entities representing physical resources (for modelling the ingredients, equipment and transport resources used in the physical world) and a generic metamodel showing the entity types and the relationships between them. == ArchiMate framework == === Core framework === The main concepts and elements of the ArchiMate language are being presented as ArchiMate core framework. It consists of three layers and three aspects. This creates a matrix of combinations. Every layer has its passive structure, behavior and active structure aspects. ==== Layers ==== ArchiMate has a layered and service-oriented look on architectural models. The higher layers make use of services that are provided by the lower layers. Although, at an abstract level, the concepts that are used within each layer are similar, we define more concrete concepts that are specific for a certain layer. In this context, we distinguish three main layers: The business layer is about business processes, services, functions and events of business units. This layer "offers products and services to external customers, which are realized in the organization by business processes performed by business actors and roles". The application layer is about software applications that "support the components in the business with application services". The technology layer deals "with the hardware and communication infrastructure to support the application layer. This layer offers infrastructural services needed to run applications, realized by computer and communication hardware and system software". Each of these main layers can be further divided in sub-layers. For example, in the business layer, the primary business processes realising the products of a company may make use of a layer of secondary (supporting) business processes; in the application layer, the end-user applications may make use of generic services offered by supporting applications. On top of the business layer, a separate environment layer may be added, modelling the external customers that make use of the services of the organisation (although these may also be considered part of the business layer). In line with service orientation, the most important relation between layers is formed by use relations, which show how the higher layers make use of the services of lower layers. However, a second type of link is formed by realisation relations: elements in lower layers may realise comparable elements in higher layers; e.g., a ‘data object’ (application layer) may realise a ‘business object’ (business layer); or an ‘artifact’ (technology layer) may realise either a ‘data object’ or an ‘application component’ (application layer). ==== Aspects ==== Passive structure is the set of entities on which actions are conducted. In the business layer the example would be information objects, in the application layer data objects and in the technology layer, they could include physical objects. Behavior refers to the processes and functions performed by the actors. "Structural elements are assigned to behavioral elements, to show who or what displays the behavior". Active structure is the set of entities that display some behavior, e.g. business actors, devices, or application components. === Full framework === The Full ArchiMate framework is enriched by the physical layer, which was added to allow modeling of “physical equipment, materials, and distribution networks” and was not present in the previous version. The implementation and migration layer adds elements that allow architects to model a state of transition, to mark parts of the architecture that are temporary for the purpose, as the name says, of implementation and migration. Strategy layer adds three elements: resource, capability and course of action. These elements help to incorporate strategic dimension to the ArchiMate language by allowing it to depict the usage of resources and capabilities in order to achieve some strategic goals. Finally, there is a motivation aspect that allows different stakeholders to describe the motivation of specific actors or domains, which can be quite important when looking at one thing from several different angles. It adds several elements like stakeholder, value, driver, goal, meaning etc. == ArchiMate language == The ArchiMate language is formed as a top-level and is hierarchical. On the top, there is a model. A model is a collection of concepts. A concept can be either an element or a relationship. An element can be either of behavior type, structure, motivation or a so-called composite element (which means that it does not fit just one aspect of the framework, but two or more). The functionality of all concepts without a dependency on a specific layer is described by the generic metamodel. This layer-independent description of concepts is useful when trying to understand the mechanics of the Archimate language. === Concepts === ==== Elements ==== The generic elements are distributed into the same categories as the layers: Active structure elements Behavior elements Passive structure elements Motivation elements Active structure e

    Read more →
  • Umbrella review

    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 →
  • Digital video effect

    Digital video effect

    Digital video effects (DVEs) are visual effects that provide comprehensive live video image manipulation, in the same form as optical printer effects in film. DVEs differ from standard video switcher effects (often referred to as analog effects) such as wipes or dissolves, in that they deal primarily with resizing, distortion or movement of the image. Modern video switchers often contain internal DVE functionality. Modern DVE devices are incorporated in high-end broadcast video switchers. Early examples of DVE devices found in the broadcast post-production industry include the Ampex Digital Optics (ADO), Quantel DPE-5000, Vital Squeezoom, NEC E-Flex and the Abekas A5x series of DVEs. By 1988, Grass Valley Group caught up with the competition with their Kaleidoscope, which integrated ADO-type effects with their widely used line of broadcast switching gear. DVEs are used by the broadcast television industry in live television production environments like television studios and outside broadcasts. They are commonly used in video post-production.

    Read more →
  • Online public access catalog

    Online public access catalog

    The online public access catalog (OPAC), now frequently synonymous with library catalog, is an online database of materials held by a library or group of libraries. Online catalogs have largely replaced the analog card catalogs previously used in libraries. == History == === Early online === Although a handful of experimental systems existed as early as the 1960s, the first large-scale online catalogs were developed at Ohio State University in 1975 and the Dallas Public Library in 1978. These and other early online catalog systems tended to closely reflect the card catalogs that they were intended to replace. Using a dedicated terminal or telnet client, users could search a handful of pre-coordinate indexes and browse the resulting display in much the same way they had previously navigated the card catalog. Throughout the 1980s, the number and sophistication of online catalogs grew. The first commercial systems appeared, and would by the end of the decade largely replace systems built by libraries themselves. Library catalogs began providing improved search mechanisms, including Boolean and keyword searching, as well as ancillary functions, such as the ability to place holds on items that had been checked-out. At the same time, libraries began to develop applications to automate the purchase, cataloging, and circulation of books and other library materials. These applications, collectively known as an integrated library system (ILS) or library management system, included an online catalog as the public interface to the system's inventory. Most library catalogs are closely tied to their underlying ILS system. === Stagnation and dissatisfaction === The 1990s saw a relative stagnation in the development of online catalogs. Although the earlier character-based interfaces were replaced with ones for the Web, both the design and the underlying search technology of most systems did not advance much beyond that developed in the late 1980s. At the same time, organizations outside of libraries began developing more sophisticated information retrieval systems. Web search engines like Google and popular e-commerce websites such as Amazon.com provided simpler to use (yet more powerful) systems that could provide relevancy ranked search results using probabilistic and vector-based queries. Prior to the widespread use of the Internet, the online catalog was often the first information retrieval system library users ever encountered. Now accustomed to web search engines, newer generations of library users have grown increasingly dissatisfied with the complex (and often arcane) search mechanisms of older online catalog systems. This has, in turn, led to vocal criticisms of these systems within the library community itself, and in recent years to the development of newer (often termed 'next-generation') catalogs. === Next-generation catalogs === Newer generations of library catalog systems, typically called discovery systems (or a discovery layer), are distinguished from earlier OPACs by their use of more sophisticated search technologies, including relevancy ranking and faceted search, as well as features aimed at greater user interaction and participation with the system, including tagging and reviews. These new features rely heavily on existing metadata which may be poor or inconsistent, particularly for older records. Newer catalog platforms may be independent of the organization's integrated library system (ILS), instead providing drivers that allow for the synchronization of data between the two systems. While the original online catalog interfaces were almost exclusively built by ILS vendors, libraries have increasingly sought next-generation catalogs built by enterprise search companies and open-source software projects, often led by libraries themselves. == Union catalogs == Although library catalogs typically reflect the holdings of a single library, they can also contain the holdings of a group or consortium of libraries. These systems, known as union catalogs, are usually designed to aid the borrowing of books and other materials among the member institutions via interlibrary loan. Examples of this type of catalogs include COPAC, SUNCAT, NLA Trove, and WorldCat—the last catalogs the collections of libraries worldwide. == Related systems == There are a number of systems that share much in common with library catalogs, but have traditionally been distinguished from them. Libraries utilize these systems to search for items not traditionally covered by a library catalog, although these systems are sometimes integrated into a more comprehensive discovery system. Bibliographic databases—such as Medline, ERIC, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and many others—index journal articles and other research data. There are also a number of applications aimed at managing documents, photographs, and other digitized or born-digital items such as Digital Commons and DSpace. Particularly in academic libraries, these systems (often known as digital library systems or institutional repository systems) assist with efforts to preserve documents created by faculty and students. Electronic resource management helps librarians to track selection, acquisition, and licensing of a library's electronic information resources.

    Read more →
  • Controlled vocabulary

    Controlled vocabulary

    A controlled vocabulary provides a way to organize knowledge for subsequent retrieval. Controlled vocabularies are used in subject indexing schemes, subject headings, thesauri, taxonomies and other knowledge organization systems. Controlled vocabulary schemes mandate the use of predefined, preferred terms that have been preselected by the designers of the schemes, in contrast to natural language vocabularies, which have no such restriction. == In library and information science == In library and information science, controlled vocabulary is a carefully selected list of words and phrases, which are used to tag units of information (document or work) so that they may be more easily retrieved by a search. Controlled vocabularies solve the problems of homographs, synonyms and polysemes by a bijection between concepts and preferred terms. In short, controlled vocabularies reduce unwanted ambiguity inherent in normal human languages where the same concept can be given different names and ensure consistency. For example, in the Library of Congress Subject Headings (a subject heading system that uses a controlled vocabulary), preferred terms—subject headings in this case—have to be chosen to handle choices between variant spellings of the same word (American versus British), choice among scientific and popular terms (cockroach versus Periplaneta americana), and choices between synonyms (automobile versus car), among other difficult issues. Choices of preferred terms are based on the principles of user warrant (what terms users are likely to use), literary warrant (what terms are generally used in the literature and documents), and structural warrant (terms chosen by considering the structure, scope of the controlled vocabulary). Controlled vocabularies also typically handle the problem of homographs with qualifiers. For example, the term pool has to be qualified to refer to either swimming pool or the game pool to ensure that each preferred term or heading refers to only one concept. === Types used in libraries === There are two main kinds of controlled vocabulary tools used in libraries: subject headings and thesauri. While the differences between the two are diminishing, there are still some minor differences: Historically, subject headings were designed to describe books in library catalogs by catalogers while thesauri were used by indexers to apply index terms to documents and articles. Subject headings tend to be broader in scope describing whole books, while thesauri tend to be more specialized covering very specific disciplines. Because of the card catalog system, subject headings tend to have terms that are in indirect order (though with the rise of automated systems this is being removed), while thesaurus terms are always in direct order. Subject headings tend to use more pre-coordination of terms such that the designer of the controlled vocabulary will combine various concepts together to form one preferred subject heading. (e.g., children and terrorism) while thesauri tend to use singular direct terms. Thesauri list not only equivalent terms but also narrower, broader terms and related terms among various preferred and non-preferred (but potentially synonymous) terms, while historically most subject headings did not. For example, the Library of Congress Subject Heading itself did not have much syndetic structure until 1943, and it was not until 1985 when it began to adopt the thesauri type term "Broader term" and "Narrow term". The terms are chosen and organized by trained professionals (including librarians and information scientists) who possess expertise in the subject area. Controlled vocabulary terms can accurately describe what a given document is actually about, even if the terms themselves do not occur within the document's text. Well known subject heading systems include the Library of Congress system, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) created by the United States National Library of Medicine, and Sears. Well known thesauri include the Art and Architecture Thesaurus and the ERIC Thesaurus. When selecting terms for a controlled vocabulary, the designer has to consider the specificity of the term chosen, whether to use direct entry, inter consistency and stability of the language. Lastly the amount of pre-coordination (in which case the degree of enumeration versus synthesis becomes an issue) and post-coordination in the system is another important issue. Controlled vocabulary elements (terms/phrases) employed as tags, to aid in the content identification process of documents, or other information system entities (e.g. DBMS, Web Services) qualifies as metadata. == Indexing languages == There are three main types of indexing languages. Controlled indexing language – only approved terms can be used by the indexer to describe the document Natural language indexing language – any term from the document in question can be used to describe the document Free indexing language – any term (not only from the document) can be used to describe the document When indexing a document, the indexer also has to choose the level of indexing exhaustivity, the level of detail in which the document is described. For example, using low indexing exhaustivity, minor aspects of the work will not be described with index terms. In general the higher the indexing exhaustivity, the more terms indexed for each document. In recent years free text search as a means of access to documents has become popular. This involves using natural language indexing with an indexing exhaustively set to maximum (every word in the text is indexed). These methods have been compared in some studies, such as the 2007 article, "A Comparative Evaluation of Full-text, Concept-based, and Context-sensitive Search". === Advantages === Controlled vocabularies are often claimed to improve the accuracy of free text searching, such as to reduce irrelevant items in the retrieval list. These irrelevant items (false positives) are often caused by the inherent ambiguity of natural language. Take the English word football for example. Football is the name given to a number of different team sports. Worldwide the most popular of these team sports is association football, which also happens to be called soccer in several countries. The word football is also applied to rugby football (rugby union and rugby league), American football, Australian rules football, Gaelic football, and Canadian football. A search for football therefore will retrieve documents that are about several completely different sports. Controlled vocabulary solves this problem by tagging the documents in such a way that the ambiguities are eliminated. Compared to free text searching, the use of a controlled vocabulary can dramatically increase the performance of an information retrieval system, if performance is measured by precision (the percentage of documents in the retrieval list that are actually relevant to the search topic). In some cases controlled vocabulary can enhance recall as well, because unlike natural language schemes, once the correct preferred term is searched, there is no need to search for other terms that might be synonyms of that term. === Disadvantages === A controlled vocabulary search may lead to unsatisfactory recall, in that it will fail to retrieve some documents that are actually relevant to the search question. This is particularly problematic when the search question involves terms that are sufficiently tangential to the subject area such that the indexer might have decided to tag it using a different term (but the searcher might consider the same). Essentially, this can be avoided only by an experienced user of controlled vocabulary whose understanding of the vocabulary coincides with that of the indexer. Another possibility is that the article is just not tagged by the indexer because indexing exhaustivity is low. For example, an article might mention football as a secondary focus, and the indexer might decide not to tag it with "football" because it is not important enough compared to the main focus. But it turns out that for the searcher that article is relevant and hence recall fails. A free text search would automatically pick up that article regardless. On the other hand, free text searches have high exhaustivity (every word is searched) so although it has much lower precision, it has potential for high recall as long as the searcher overcome the problem of synonyms by entering every combination. Controlled vocabularies may become outdated rapidly in fast developing fields of knowledge, unless the preferred terms are updated regularly. Even in an ideal scenario, a controlled vocabulary is often less specific than the words of the text itself. Indexers trying to choose the appropriate index terms might misinterpret the author, while this precise problem is not a factor in a free text, as it uses the author's own words. The use of controlled vocabularies can be costly compared to free

    Read more →