AI Email Editor

AI Email Editor — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Question answering

  Question answering (QA) is a computer science discipline within the fields of information retrieval and natural language processing (NLP) that is concerned with building systems that automatically answer questions that are posed by humans in a natural language. A question-answering implementation, usually a computer program, may construct its answers by querying a structured database of knowledge or information, usually a knowledge base. More commonly, question-answering systems can pull answers from an unstructured collection of natural language documents. Some examples of natural language document collections used for question answering systems include reference texts, compiled newswire reports, Wikipedia pages and other World Wide Web pages. == History == Two early question answering systems were BASEBALL and LUNAR. BASEBALL answered questions about Major League Baseball over a period of one year. LUNAR answered questions about the geological analysis of rocks returned by the Apollo Moon missions. Both question answering systems were very effective in their chosen domains. LUNAR was demonstrated at a lunar science convention in 1971 and it was able to answer 90% of the questions in its domain that were posed by people untrained on the system. Further restricted-domain question answering systems were developed in the following years. The common feature of all these systems is that they had a core database or knowledge system that was hand-written by experts of the chosen domain. The language abilities of BASEBALL and LUNAR used techniques similar to ELIZA and DOCTOR, the first chatterbot programs. SHRDLU was a successful question-answering program developed by Terry Winograd in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It simulated the operation of a robot in a toy world (the "blocks world"), and it offered the possibility of asking the robot questions about the state of the world. The strength of this system was the choice of a very specific domain and a very simple world with rules of physics that were easy to encode in a computer program. In the 1970s, knowledge bases were developed that targeted narrower domains of knowledge. The question answering systems developed to interface with these expert systems produced more repeatable and valid responses to questions within an area of knowledge. These expert systems closely resembled modern question answering systems except in their internal architecture. Expert systems rely heavily on expert-constructed and organized knowledge bases, whereas many modern question answering systems rely on statistical processing of a large, unstructured, natural language text corpus. The 1970s and 1980s saw the development of comprehensive theories in computational linguistics, which led to the development of ambitious projects in text comprehension and question answering. One example was the Unix Consultant (UC), developed by Robert Wilensky at U.C. Berkeley in the late 1980s. The system answered questions pertaining to the Unix operating system. It had a comprehensive, hand-crafted knowledge base of its domain, and it aimed at phrasing the answer to accommodate various types of users. Another project was LILOG, a text-understanding system that operated on the domain of tourism information in a German city. The systems developed in the UC and LILOG projects never went past the stage of simple demonstrations, but they helped the development of theories on computational linguistics and reasoning. Specialized natural-language question answering systems have been developed, such as EAGLi for health and life scientists. Question answering systems have been extended in recent years to encompass additional domains of knowledge For example, systems have been developed to automatically answer temporal and geospatial questions, questions of definition and terminology, biographical questions, multilingual questions, and questions about the content of audio, images, and video. Current question answering research topics include: interactivity—clarification of questions or answers answer reuse or caching semantic parsing answer presentation knowledge representation and semantic entailment social media analysis with question answering systems sentiment analysis utilization of thematic roles Image captioning for visual question answering Embodied question answering In 2011, Watson, a question answering computer system developed by IBM, competed in two exhibition matches of Jeopardy! against Brad Rutter and Ken Jennings, winning by a significant margin. Facebook Research made their DrQA system available under an open source license. This system uses Wikipedia as knowledge source. The open source framework Haystack by deepset combines open-domain question answering with generative question answering and supports the domain adaptation of the underlying language models for industry use cases. Large Language Models (LLMs)[36] like GPT-4[37], Gemini[38] are examples of successful QA systems that are enabling more sophisticated understanding and generation of text. When coupled with Multimodal[39] QA Systems, which can process and understand information from various modalities like text, images, and audio, LLMs significantly improve the capabilities of QA systems. == Types == Question-answering research attempts to develop ways of answering a wide range of question types, including fact, list, definition, how, why, hypothetical, semantically constrained, and cross-lingual questions. Answering questions related to an article in order to evaluate reading comprehension is one of the simpler form of question answering, since a given article is relatively short compared to the domains of other types of question-answering problems. An example of such a question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" after an article about this subject is given to the system. Closed-book question answering is when a system has memorized some facts during training and can answer questions without explicitly being given a context. This is similar to humans taking closed-book exams. Closed-domain question answering deals with questions under a specific domain (for example, medicine or automotive maintenance) and can exploit domain-specific knowledge frequently formalized in ontologies. Alternatively, "closed-domain" might refer to a situation where only a limited type of questions are accepted, such as questions asking for descriptive rather than procedural information. Question answering systems in the context of machine reading applications have also been constructed in the medical domain, for instance related to Alzheimer's disease. Open-domain question answering deals with questions about nearly anything and can only rely on general ontologies and world knowledge. Systems designed for open-domain question answering usually have much more data available from which to extract the answer. An example of an open-domain question is "What did Albert Einstein win the Nobel Prize for?" while no article about this subject is given to the system. Another way to categorize question-answering systems is by the technical approach used. There are a number of different types of QA systems, including: rule-based systems, statistical systems, and hybrid systems. Rule-based systems use a set of rules to determine the correct answer to a question. Statistical systems use statistical methods to find the most likely answer to a question. Hybrid systems use a combination of rule-based and statistical methods. == Architecture == As of 2001, question-answering systems typically included a question classifier module that determined the type of question and the type of answer. Different types of question-answering systems employ different architectures. For example, modern open-domain question answering systems may use a retriever-reader architecture. The retriever is aimed at retrieving relevant documents related to a given question, while the reader is used to infer the answer from the retrieved documents. Systems such as GPT-3, T5, and BART use an end-to-end architecture in which a transformer-based architecture stores large-scale textual data in the underlying parameters. Such models can answer questions without accessing any external knowledge sources. == Methods == Question answering is dependent on a good search corpus; without documents containing the answer, there is little any question answering system can do. Larger collections generally mean better question answering performance, unless the question domain is orthogonal to the collection. Data redundancy in massive collections, such as the web, means that nuggets of information are likely to be phrased in many different ways in differing contexts and documents, leading to two benefits: If the right information appears in many forms, the question answering system needs to perform fewer complex NLP techniques to understand the text. Correct answers can be filtered from false positives because the syst

  Read more →
• 

  Taxonomic database

  A taxonomic database is a database created to hold information on biological taxa – for example groups of organisms organized by species name or other taxonomic identifier – for efficient data management and information retrieval. Taxonomic databases are routinely used for the automated construction of biological checklists such as floras and faunas, both for print publication and online; to underpin the operation of web-based species information systems; as a part of biological collection management (for example in museums and herbaria); as well as providing, in some cases, the taxon management component of broader science or biology information systems. They are also a fundamental contribution to the discipline of biodiversity informatics. == Goals == Taxonomic databases digitize scientific biodiversity data and provide access to taxonomic data for research. Taxonomic databases vary in breadth of the groups of taxa and geographical space they seek to include, for example: beetles in a defined region, mammals globally, or all described taxa in the tree of life. A taxonomic database may incorporate organism identifiers (scientific name, author, and – for zoological taxa – year of original publication), synonyms, taxonomic opinions, literature sources or citations, illustrations or photographs, and biological attributes for each taxon (such as geographic distribution, ecology, descriptive information, threatened or vulnerable status, etc.). Some databases, such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility(GBIF) database and the Barcode of Life Data System, store the DNA barcode of a taxon if one exists (also called the Barcode Index Number (BIN) which may be assigned, for example, by the International Barcode of Life project (iBOL) or UNITE, a database for fungal DNA barcoding). A taxonomic database aims to accurately model the characteristics of interest that are relevant to the organisms which are in scope for the intended coverage and usage of the system. For example, databases of fungi, algae, bryophytes and vascular plants ("higher plants") encode conventions from the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature while their counterparts for animals and most protists encode equivalent rules from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Modelling the relevant taxonomic hierarchy for any taxon is a natural fit with the relational model employed in almost all database systems. Scientific consensus is not reached for all taxon groups, and new species continue to be described; therefore, another goal of taxonomic databases is to aid in resolving conflicts of scientific opinion and unify taxonomy. == History == Possibly the earliest documented management of taxonomic information in computerised form comprised the taxonomic coding system developed by Richard Swartz et al. at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science for the Biota of Chesapeake Bay and described in a published report in 1972. This work led directly or indirectly to other projects with greater profile including the NODC Taxonomic Code system which went through 8 versions before being discontinued in 1996, to be subsumed and transformed into the still current Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). A number of other taxonomic databases specializing in particular groups of organisms that appeared in the 1970s through to the present jointly contribute to the Species 2000 project, which since 2001 has been partnering with ITIS to produce a combined product, the Catalogue of Life. While the Catalogue of Life currently concentrates on assembling basic name information as a global species checklist, numerous other taxonomic database projects such as Fauna Europaea, the Australian Faunal Directory, and more supply rich ancillary information including descriptions, illustrations, maps, and more. Many taxonomic database projects are currently listed at the TDWG "Biodiversity Information Projects of the World" site. == Issues == The representation of taxonomic information in machine-encodable form raises a number of issues not encountered in other domains, such as variant ways to cite the same species or other taxon name, the same name used for multiple taxa (homonyms), multiple non-current names for the same taxon (synonyms), changes in name and taxon concept definition through time, and more. Non-standardized categories and metadata in taxonomic databases hampers the ability for researchers to analyze the data. One forum that has promoted discussion and possible solutions to these and related problems since 1985 is the Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG), originally called the Taxonomic Database Working Group. While online databases have great benefits (for example, increased access to taxonomic information), they also have issues such as data integrity risks due to on- and off-line versions and continuous updates, technical access issues due to server or internet outage, and differing capacities for complex queries to extract taxonomic data into lists. As the quantity of information in online taxonomic databases rapidly expands, data aggregation, and the integration and alignment of non-standardized data across databases, is a big challenge in taxonomy and biodiversity informatics.

  Read more →
• 

  Certifying algorithm

  In theoretical computer science, a certifying algorithm is an algorithm that outputs, together with a solution to the problem it solves, a proof that the solution is correct. A certifying algorithm is said to be efficient if the combined runtime of the algorithm and a proof checker is slower by at most a constant factor than the best known non-certifying algorithm for the same problem. The proof produced by a certifying algorithm should be in some sense simpler than the algorithm itself, for otherwise any algorithm could be considered certifying (with its output verified by running the same algorithm again). Sometimes this is formalized by requiring that a verification of the proof take less time than the original algorithm, while for other problems (in particular those for which the solution can be found in linear time) simplicity of the output proof is considered in a less formal sense. For instance, the validity of the output proof may be more apparent to human users than the correctness of the algorithm, or a checker for the proof may be more amenable to formal verification. Implementations of certifying algorithms that also include a checker for the proof generated by the algorithm may be considered to be more reliable than non-certifying algorithms. For, whenever the algorithm is run, one of three things happens: it produces a correct output (the desired case), it detects a bug in the algorithm or its implication (undesired, but generally preferable to continuing without detecting the bug), or both the algorithm and the checker are faulty in a way that masks the bug and prevents it from being detected (undesired, but unlikely as it depends on the existence of two independent bugs). == Examples == Many examples of problems with checkable algorithms come from graph theory. For instance, a classical algorithm for testing whether a graph is bipartite would simply output a Boolean value: true if the graph is bipartite, false otherwise. In contrast, a certifying algorithm might output a 2-coloring of the graph in the case that it is bipartite, or a cycle of odd length if it is not. Any graph is bipartite if and only if it can be 2-colored, and non-bipartite if and only if it contains an odd cycle. Both checking whether a 2-coloring is valid and checking whether a given odd-length sequence of vertices is a cycle may be performed more simply than testing bipartiteness. Analogously, it is possible to test whether a given directed graph is acyclic by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a topological order or a directed cycle. It is possible to test whether an undirected graph is a chordal graph by a certifying algorithm that outputs either an elimination ordering (an ordering of all vertices such that, for every vertex, the neighbors that are later in the ordering form a clique) or a chordless cycle. And it is possible to test whether a graph is planar by a certifying algorithm that outputs either a planar embedding or a Kuratowski subgraph. The extended Euclidean algorithm for the greatest common divisor of two integers x and y is certifying: it outputs three integers g (the divisor), a, and b, such that ax + by = g. This equation can only be true of multiples of the greatest common divisor, so testing that g is the greatest common divisor may be performed by checking that g divides both x and y and that this equation is correct.

  Read more →
• 

  E-Science librarianship

  E-Science librarianship refers to a role for librarians in e-Science. == Early scholars == Early references to e-Science and librarianship involve information studies scholars researching cyberinfrastructure and emerging networked information and knowledge communities. Notably Christine Borgman, Professor and Presidential Chair in Information Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) was a key player in bringing e-Science, and the idea of networked knowledge communities, to the attention of the library profession. In 2004, as a visiting fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, she conducted research and lectured publicly on e-Science, Digital Libraries, and Knowledge Communities. In 2007 Anna K. Gold, formerly of MIT and Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, authored a series of articles in D-Lib Magazine that opened the door for academic libraries to begin exploring roles, skills, and strategies for engaging in e-Science: Cyberinfrastructure, Data, and Libraries, Part 1: A Cyberinfrastructure Primer for Librarians and Cyberinfrastructure, Data, and Libraries, Part 2: Libraries and the Data Challenge: Roles and Actions for Libraries. == Academic research and health sciences libraries == In 2007, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) e-Science task force issued its report on e-Science and librarianship. The ARL's report encouraged its member libraries to position themselves to engage with researchers involved in e-Science (eScience) by cultivating new research support strategies and developing their digital scholarship infrastructure. E-Science has multiple attributes; Tony and Jessie Hey framed e-Science for the library community by characterizing it as a research methodology: "e-Science is not a new scientific discipline in its own right: e-Science is shorthand for the set of tools and technologies required to support collaborative, networked science". In addition to academic libraries' interests in providing support for their researchers engaging in e-Science, the health sciences library community also emerged as a major proponent for creating librarian positions for supporting the information needs of large-scale, networked, research collaborations on their campuses. Neil Rambo, current director of NYU's Health Sciences Library and former director of University of Washington Health Sciences Library, was the first to use the term in the Journal of the Medical Library Association, in his 2009 editorial e-Science and the Biomedical Library. Rambo's definition of e-Science highlighted the potential e-Science held for creating data as a research product: "E-science is a new research methodology, fueled by networked capabilities and the practical possibility of gathering and storing vast amounts of data." In response to this article the University of Massachusetts Medical School Lamar Soutter Library and National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region encouraged health sciences libraries to cooperate to identify skills and develop a program for training e-Science Librarians. Then, in 2013, Shannon Bohle, an archivist who was employed in the library at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, an NCI-designated basic cancer research facility, used experience gained there and previous papers and presentations about preserving scientific archival materials to expand the traditional definition of e-Science by including the terms, principles, and practices used in archival science. These included in the definition the "long-term storage and accessibility of all materials generated through the scientific process," as well as examples of material types traditionally preserved in archives, like "electronic/digitized laboratory notebooks, raw and fitted data sets, manuscript production and draft versions, pre-prints," as well as library materials ("print and/or electronic publications"). == Roles == Many areas of science are about to be transformed by the availability of vast amounts of new scientific data that can potentially provide insights at a level of detail never before envisaged. However, this new data dominant era brings new challenges for the scientists and they will need the skills and technologies both of computer scientists and of the library community to manage, search and curate these new data resources. Libraries will not be immune from change in this new world of research. Karen Williams identifies roles in the following areas for librarians in the developing world of e-Science. Campus Engagement Content/Collection Development and Management Teaching and Learning Scholarly Communication E-Scholarship and Digital Tools Reference/Help Services Outreach Fund Raising Exhibit and Event Planning Leadership == Challenges for research libraries == E-science tends toward inter- and multidisciplinary approaches that depend on computation and computer science. Research libraries have traditionally been discipline focused and, although increasingly technologically sophisticated, do not have systems of the scale or complexity of the e-science environment. E-science is data intensive, but research libraries have not typically been responsible for scientific data. E-science is frequently conducted in a team context, often distributed across multiple institutions and on a global scale. The primary constituency of libraries generally comprises those affiliated with the local institution. Licenses for electronic content are typically restricted to a particular institutional community, and the infrastructure to move institutional licenses into a multi-institutional environment is not well developed. E-science challenges all these traditional paradigms of research library organization and services. == Skills == Garritano & Carlson were among the first to outline a skill set for librarians seeking to support the data needs of e-Science; they identified five skill categories librarians new to this area should expect to adapt or develop when participating on such projects: Library and information science expertise Subject expertise Partnerships and outreach (both internal and external) Participating in sponsored research Balancing workload An example of librarians reconfiguring traditional librarian skills to meet the needs of researchers engaging in e-Science is Witt & Carlson's adaptation of the traditional reference interview into a "data interview" in order to provide effective data management and e-Science services. This interview consists of ten practical queries necessary for understanding the provenance and expectations for the preservation of datasets typical of e-Science that also help illustrate some of the educational tools and skills needed by a librarian new to e-Science. "What is the story of the data? What form and format are the data in? What is the expected lifespan of the dataset? How could the data be used, reused, and repurposed? How large is the dataset, and what is its rate of growth? Who are the potential audiences for the data? Who owns the data? Does the dataset include any sensitive information? What publications or discoveries have resulted from the data? How should the data be made accessible?" == Resources == In 2009 the Lamar Soutter Library at the University of Massachusetts Medical School (UMMS) and the National Network of Libraries of Medicine, New England Region (NN/LM NER) funded an e-Science program for building the skills highlighted above for librarians. Elaine Russo Martin, Director of Library Services at the Lamar Soutter Library and Director of the NN/LM NER developed this comprehensive e-Science program to build librarians' subject expertise in the sciences, developing their data management skills, and their familiarity with cyberinfrastructure and e-Science. Three major products of this program are the e-Science web portal for librarians, the E-Science Symposium, and the New England Collaborative Data Management Curriculum (NECDMC). This portal includes educational resources for specific tools and subject/discipline tutorials and modules to assist librarians new to e-Science. UMMS and NN/LM NER also publish an open access journal called the Journal of eScience Librarianship.

  Read more →
• 

  Sports Card Investor

  Sports Card Investor is an American sports collectibles media platform and mobile application founded by Geoff Wilson. The platform provides market data, analysis, and editorial content focused on sports trading cards and related collectibles. It operates a website, mobile app, and digital media channels covering developments in the sports card industry. The company posted its first YouTube video in July 2019, shortly before a period of rapid growth in sports card collecting in the early 2020s, which was marked by increased trading volumes and mainstream media attention. == History == Sports Card Investor was founded by Geoff Wilson, an entrepreneur and collector who began publishing sports card–related content online before launching the platform's dedicated app and subscription tools. In February 2020, the company launched Market Movers, the first website and app to chart sports card prices and track card collections. The platform expanded its media presence through partnerships and distribution agreements. In 2023, Yahoo Sports announced a new collectibles coverage initiative that included additional content from Sports Card Investor. In February 2024, the Sports Card Investor studio relocated to CardsHQ in Atlanta, Georgia, and visitors to the facility can watch Sports Card Investor videos being filmed. == Platform and content == The Sports Card Investor app provides users with pricing data, portfolio-tracking tools, and market-trend analysis for trading cards. The company also produces video and editorial content discussing market developments, grading trends, and major card releases. Coverage in industry publications has referenced Sports Card Investor in discussions about shifts in sports card licensing rights and hobby market reactions. == Industry context == The growth of Sports Card Investor coincided with a broader resurgence in trading card markets, including record sales and expanded retail presence. Mainstream outlets have cited the company and its founder in reporting on collectibles investing trends, grading practices, and market volatility. The Sports Card Investor app has attracted over 37,000 reviews on the Apple App Store, reflecting its strong user engagement within the sports card community.

  Read more →
• 

  Subject (documents)

  In library and information science documents (such as books, articles and pictures) are classified and searched by subject – as well as by other attributes such as author, genre and document type. This makes "subject" a fundamental term in this field. Library and information specialists assign subject labels to documents to make them findable. There are many ways to do this and in general there is not always consensus about which subject should be assigned to a given document. To optimize subject indexing and searching, we need to have a deeper understanding of what a subject is. The question: "what is to be understood by the statement 'document A belongs to subject category X'?" has been debated in the field for more than 100 years (see below) == Theoretical view == === Charles Ammi Cutter (1837–1903) === For Cutter the stability of subjects depends on a social process in which their meaning is stabilized in a name or a designation. A subject "referred [...] to those intellections [...] that had received a name that itself represented a distinct consensus in usage" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 60) and: the "systematic structure of established subjects" is "resident in the public realm" (Miksa, 1983a, p. 69); "[s]ubjects are by their very nature locations in a classificatory structure of publicly accumulated knowledge (Miksa, 1983a, p. 61). Bernd Frohmann adds: "The stability of the public realm in turn relies upon natural and objective mental structures which, with proper education, govern a natural progression from particular to general concepts. Since for Cutter, mind, society, and SKO [Systems of Knowledge Organization] stand one behind the other, each supporting each, all manifesting the same structure, his discursive construction of subjects invites connections with discourses of mind, education, and society. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), by contrast, severs those connections. Melvil Dewey emphasized more than once that his system maps no structure beyond its own; there is neither a "transcendental deduction" of its categories nor any reference to Cutter's objective structure of social consensus. It is content-free: Dewey disdained any philosophical excogitation of the meaning of his class symbols, leaving the job of finding verbal equivalents to others. His innovation and the essence of the system lay in the notation. The DDC is a poorly semiotic system of expanding nests of ten digits, lacking any referent beyond itself. In it, a subject is wholly constituted in terms of its position in the system. The essential characteristic of a subject is a class symbol which refers only to other symbols. Its verbal equivalent is accidental, a merely pragmatic characteristic... .... The conflict of interpretations over "subjects" became explicit in the battles between "bibliography" (an approach to subjects having much in common with Cutter's) and Dewey's "close classification". William Fletcher spoke for the scholarly bibliographer.... Fletcher's "subjects", like Cutter's, referred to the categories of a fantasized, stable social order, whereas Dewey's subjects were elements of a semiological system of standardized, techno-bureaucratic administrative software for the library in its corporate, rather than high culture, incarnation". (Frohmann, 1994, 112–113). Cutter's early view on what a subject is, is probably wiser than most understandings that dominated the 20th century – and also the understanding reflected in the ISO-standard quoted below. The early statements quoted by Frohmann indicate that subjects are somehow shaped in social processes. When that is said, it should be added that they are not particularly detailed or clear. We only get a vague idea of the social nature of subjects. === S. R. Ranganathan (1892–1972) === A classification system with an explicit theoretical foundation is Ranganathan's Colon Classification. Ranganathan provided an explicit definition of the concept of "subject": Subject – an organized body of ideas, whose extension and intension are likely to fall coherently within the field of interests and comfortably within the intellectual competence and the field of inevitable specialization of a normal person. A related definition is given by one of Ranganathan's students: A subject is an organized and systematized body of ideas. It may consist of one idea or a combination of several... Ranganathan's definition of "subject" is strongly influenced by his Colon Classification system. The colon system is based on the combination of single elements from facets to subject designation. This is the reason why the combined nature of subjects are emphasized so strongly. It leads, however, to absurdities such as the claim that gold cannot be a subject (but is alternatively termed "an isolate"). This aspect of the theory has been criticized by Metcalfe (1973, p. 318). Metcalfe's skepticism regarding Ranganathan's theory is formulated in hard words (op. cit., p. 317): "This pseudo-science imposed itself on British disciples from about 1950 on...". It seems unacceptable that Ranganathan defines the word subject in a way that favors his own system. A scientific concept like "subject" should make it possible to compare different ways of establishing access to information. Whether or not subjects are combined or not should be examined once their definition has been given, it should not determined a priori, in the definition. Besides the emphasis on the combined, organizing and systematizing nature of subjects contains Ranganathan's definition of subject the pragmatic demand, that a subject should be determined in a way that suits a normal person's competency or specialization. Again we see a strange kind of wishful thinking mixing a general understanding of a concept with demands put by his own specific system. One thing is what the word subject means, quite another issue is how to provide subject descriptions that fulfill demands such as the specificity of a given information retrieval language which fulfill demands put on the system, such as precision and recall. If researchers too often define terms in ways that favor specific kinds of systems, that are such definitions not useful to provide more general theories about subjects, subject analysis and IR. Among other things are comparative studies of different kinds of systems made difficult. Based on these arguments, as well as additional arguments which have been used in the literature, we may conclude that Ranganathan's definition of the concept "subject" is not suited for scientific use. Like the definition of "subject" given by the ISO-standard for topic maps, may Ranganathan's definition be useful within his own closed system. The purpose of a scientific and scholarly field is, however, to examine the relative fruitfulness of systems such as topic maps and Colon Classification. For such purpose is another understanding of "subject" necessary. === Patrick Wilson (1927–2003) === In his book Wilson (1968) examined – in particular by thought experiments – the suitability of different methods of examining the subject of a document. The methods were: identifying the author's purpose for writing the document, weighing the relative dominance and subordination of different elements in the picture, which the reading imposes on the reader, grouping or count the document's use of concepts and references, construing a set of rules for selecting elements deemed necessary (as opposed to unnecessary) for the work as a whole. Patrick Wilson shows convincingly that each of these methods are insufficient to determine the subject of a document and is led to conclude ( p. 89): "The notion of the subject of a writing is indeterminate..." or, on p. 92 (about what users may expect to find using a particular position in a library classification system): "For nothing definite can be expected of the things found at any given position". In connection to the last quote has Wilson an interesting footnote in which he writes that authors of documents often use terms in ambiguous ways ("hostility" is used as an example). Even if the librarian could personally develop a very precise understanding of a concept, he would be unable to use it in his classification, because none of the documents use the term in the same precise way. Based on this argumentation is Wilson led to conclude: "If people write on what are for them ill-defined phenomena, a correct description of their subjects must reflect the ill-definedness". Wilson's concept of subject was discussed by Hjørland (1992) who found that it is problematic to give up the precise understanding of such a basic term in LIS. Wilson's arguments led him to an agnostic position which Hjørland found unacceptable and unnecessary. Concerning the authors' use of ambiguous terms, the role of the subject analysis is to determine which documents would be fruitful for users to identify whether or not the documents use one or another term or whether a given term i

  Read more →
• 

  Organizational metacognition

  Organizational metacognition is knowing what an organization knows, a concept related to metacognition, organizational learning, the learning organization and sensemaking. It is used to describe how organizations and teams develop an awareness of their own thinking, learning how to learn, where awareness of ignorance can motivate learning. The organizational deutero-learning concept identified by Argyris and Schon defines when organizations learn how to carry out single-loop and double-loop learning. It has also been described as learning how to learn through a process of collaborative inquiry and reflection (evaluative inquiry). "When an organization engages in deutero-learning its members learn about the previous context for learning. They reflect on and inquire into previous episodes of organizational learning, or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, they produce these strategies, and they evaluate and generalize what they have produced" Learning what facilitates and inhibits learning enables organizations to develop new strategies to develop their knowledge. For example, identification of a gap between perceived performance (such as satisfaction) and actual performance (outcomes) creates an awareness that makes the organization understand that learning needs to occur, driving appropriate changes to the environment and processes. == Learning prototypes == Wijnhoven (2001) grouped four learning prototypes that best meet learning needs, the match between these needs and learning norms dictating an organization's learning capabilities; deutero-learning is the acquisition of these capabilities. knowledge gap analysis classification of problems to select operationally required knowledge and skills coping with organizational tremors and jolts by anticipation, response and adjustments of behavioural repertoires decisional uncertainty measurement == Terminological ambiguities == Organizational metacognition and organizational deutero-learning have both been described as the concept or phenomenon where organizations learn how to learn. Argyris and Schon (1978) place deutero-learning into their cognitive theory of action framework, neglecting aspects of adaptive behaviour and context core to Bateson's (1972) original definitions. In order to resolve terminological ambiguities, Visser (2007) reviewed and reformulated the concept of deutero-learning as, "the behavioral adaptation to patterns of conditioning in relationships in organizational contexts, distinguishing it from meta-learning and planned learning" (pg. 659). == Significance == Organizational metacognition is considered a key norm to the prescriptive concept of the learning organization. Its significance has been recognized by industry, the military and in disaster response. == Examples in practice == Examples of poor metacognition (deutero-learning) have been described in knowledge network environments, "Knowledge networking is important to most competitive enterprises today. Enterprise knowledge is becoming ever more specialized in nature, so no single person or organization can know everything in detail. Hence addressing complex, multidisciplinary problems requires developing and accessing a network of knowledgeable people and organizations. The problem is, many otherwise knowledgeable people and organizations are not fully aware of their knowledge networks, and even more problematic, they are not aware that they are not aware. This focuses our attention toward organizational metacognition."

  Read more →
• 

  OpenWSN

  OpenWSN aims to build an open standard-based and open source implementation of a complete constrained network protocol stack for wireless sensor networks and Internet of Things. The project was created at the University of California Berkeley and extended at the INRIA and at the Open University of Catalonia (UOC). The root of OpenWSN is a deterministic MAC layer implementing the IEEE 802.15.4e TSCH based on the concept of Time Slotted Channel Hopping (TSCH). Above the MAC layer, the Low Power Lossy Network stack is based on IETF standards including the IETF 6TiSCH management and adaptation layer (a minimal configuration profile, 6top protocol and different scheduling functions). The stack is complemented by an implementation of 6LoWPAN, RPL in non-storing mode, UDP and CoAP, enabling access to devices running the stack from the native IPv6 through open standards. OpenWSN is related to other projects including the following: RIOT OpenMote OpenWSN is available for Linux, Windows and OS X platforms. Current release of OpenWSN is 1.14.0.

  Read more →
• 

  Collision detection

  Collision detection is the computational problem of detecting an intersection of two or more objects in virtual space. More precisely, it deals with the questions of if, when, and where two or more objects intersect. Collision detection is a classic problem of computational geometry with applications in computer graphics, physical simulation, video games, robotics (including autonomous driving), and computational physics. Collision detection algorithms can be divided into operating on 2D or 3D spatial objects. == Overview == Collision detection is closely linked to calculating the distance between objects, as objects collide when the distance between them is less than or equal to zero. Negative distances indicate that one object has penetrated another. Performing collision detection requires more context than just the distance between the objects. Accurately identifying the points of contact on both objects' surfaces is also essential for computing a physically accurate collision response. The complexity of this task increases with the level of detail in the objects' representations: the more intricate the model, the greater the computational cost. Collision detection frequently involves dynamic objects, adding a temporal dimension to distance calculations. Instead of simply measuring distance between static objects, collision detection algorithms often aim to determine whether the objects' motion will bring them to a point in time when their distance is zero—an operation that adds significant computational overhead. In collision detection involving multiple objects, a naive approach would require detecting collisions for all pairwise combinations of objects. As the number of objects increases, the number of required comparisons grows rapidly: for n {\displaystyle n} objects, n ( n − 1 ) / 2 {n(n-1)}/{2} intersection tests are needed with a naive approach. This quadratic growth makes such an approach computationally expensive as n {\displaystyle n} increases. Due to the complexity mentioned above, collision detection is a computationally intensive process. Nevertheless, it is essential for interactive applications like video games, robotics, and real-time physics engines. To manage these computational demands, extensive efforts have gone into optimizing collision detection algorithms. A commonly used approach towards accelerating the required computations is to divide the process into two phases: the broad phase and the narrow phase. The broad phase aims to answer the question of whether objects might collide, using a conservative but efficient approach to rule out pairs that clearly do not intersect, thus avoiding unnecessary calculations. Objects that cannot be definitively separated in the broad phase are passed to the narrow phase. Here, more precise algorithms determine whether these objects actually intersect. If they do, the narrow phase often calculates the exact time and location of the intersection. == Broad phase == This phase aims at quickly finding objects or parts of objects for which it can be quickly determined that no further collision test is needed. A useful property of such approach is that it is output sensitive. In the context of collision detection this means that the time complexity of the collision detection is proportional to the number of objects that are close to each other. An early example of that is the I-COLLIDE where the number of required narrow phase collision tests was O ( n + m ) {\displaystyle O(n+m)} where n {\displaystyle n} is the number of objects and m {\displaystyle m} is the number of objects at close proximity. This is a significant improvement over the quadratic complexity of the naive approach. === Spatial partitioning === Several approaches can be grouped under the spatial partitioning umbrella, which includes octrees (for 3D), quadtrees (for 2D), binary space partitioning (or BSP trees) and other, similar approaches. If one splits space into a number of simple cells, and if two objects can be shown not to be in the same cell, then they need not be checked for intersection. Dynamic scenes and deformable objects require updating the partitioning which can add overhead. === Bounding volume hierarchy === Bounding Volume Hierarchy (BVH) is a tree structure over a set of bounding volumes. Collision is determined by doing a tree traversal starting from the root. If the bounding volume of the root doesn't intersect with the object of interest, the traversal can be stopped. If, however there is an intersection, the traversal proceeds and checks the branches for each there is an intersection. Branches for which there is no intersection with the bounding volume can be culled from further intersection test. Therefore, multiple objects can be determined to not intersect at once. BVH can be used with deformable objects such as cloth or soft-bodies but the volume hierarchy has to be adjusted as the shape deforms. For deformable objects we need to be concerned about self-collisions or self intersections. BVH can be used for that end as well. Collision between two objects is computed by computing intersection between the bounding volumes of the root of the tree as there are collision we dive into the sub-trees that intersect. Exact collisions between the actual objects, or its parts (often triangles of a triangle mesh) need to be computed only between intersecting leaves. The same approach works for pair wise collision and self-collisions. === Exploiting temporal coherence === During the broad-phase, when the objects in the world move or deform, the data-structures used to cull collisions have to be updated. In cases where the changes between two frames or time-steps are small and the objects can be approximated well with axis-aligned bounding boxes, the sweep and prune algorithm can be a suitable approach. Several key observation make the implementation efficient: Two bounding-boxes intersect if, and only if, there is overlap along all three axes; overlap can be determined, for each axis separately, by sorting the intervals for all the boxes; and lastly, between two frames updates are typically small (making sorting algorithms optimized for almost-sorted lists suitable for this application). The algorithm keeps track of currently intersecting boxes, and as objects move, re-sorting the intervals helps keep track of the status. === Pairwise pruning === Once a pair of physical bodies has been selected for further investigation, collisions need to be checked more carefully. However, in many applications, individual objects (if they are not too deformable) are described by a set of smaller primitives, mainly triangles. So there are two sets of triangles, S = S 1 , S 2 , … , S n {\displaystyle S={S_{1},S_{2},\dots ,S_{n}}} and T = T 1 , T 2 , … , T n {\displaystyle T={T_{1},T_{2},\dots ,T_{n}}} (for simplicity, each set has the same number of triangles.) The obvious thing to do is to check all triangles S j {\displaystyle S_{j}} against all triangles T k {\displaystyle T_{k}} for collisions, but this involves n 2 {\displaystyle n^{2}} comparisons, which is highly inefficient. If possible, it is desirable to use a pruning algorithm to reduce the number of pairs of triangles that need to be checked. The most widely used family of algorithms is known as the hierarchical bounding volumes method. As a preprocessing step, for each object (e.g., S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} ) calculates a hierarchy of bounding volumes. Then, at each time step, when collisions need to be checked between S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , the hierarchical bounding volumes are used to reduce the number of pairs of triangles under consideration. For simplicity, provide an example using bounding spheres, although it has been noted that spheres are undesirable in many cases. If E {\displaystyle E} is a set of triangles, a bounding sphere is pre-calculated. B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} . There are many ways of choosing B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} , B ( E ) {\displaystyle B(E)} is a sphere that completely contains E {\displaystyle E} and is as small as possible. Ahead of time, B ( S ) {\displaystyle B(S)} and B ( T ) {\displaystyle B(T)} can be computed. Clearly, if these two spheres do not intersect (and that is very easy to test), then neither do S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} . This is not much better than an n-body pruning algorithm, however. If E = E 1 , E 2 , … , E m {\displaystyle E={E_{1},E_{2},\dots ,E_{m}}} is a set of triangles, then split it into two halves L ( E ) := E 1 , E 2 , … , E m / 2 {\displaystyle L(E):={E_{1},E_{2},\dots ,E_{m/2}}} and R ( E ) := E m / 2 + 1 , … , E m − 1 , E m {\displaystyle R(E):={E_{m/2+1},\dots ,E_{m-1},E_{m}}} . Apply this to S {\displaystyle S} and T {\displaystyle T} , and calculate (ahead of time) the bounding spheres B ( L ( S ) ) , B ( R ( S ) ) {\displaystyle B(L(S)),B(R(S))} and B ( L ( T ) ) , B ( R ( T ) ) {\displaystyle B(L(T)),B(R(T))} . T

  Read more →
• 

  Novell Storage Manager

  Novell Storage Manager is a system software package released by Novell in 2004 that uses identity, policy and directory events to automate full lifecycle management of file storage for individual users and organizational groups. By tying storage management to an organization's existing identity infrastructure, it has been pointed out, Novell Storage Manager enables the administration of users across all file servers "as a single pool rather than [in] separate independently managed domains." Novell Storage Manager is a component of the Novell File Management Suite. == How It Works == Novell Storage Manager dynamically manages and provisions storage based on user and group events that occur in the directory, including user creations, group assignments, moves, renames, and deletions. When a change happens in the directory that affects a user’s file storage needs or user storage policy, Storage Manager applies the appropriate policy and makes the necessary changes at the file system level to address those storage needs. The following key components comprise Novell Storage Manager's identity and policy-driven state machine architecture: Directory services; Storage policies; Novell Storage Manager event monitors; Novell Storage Manager policy engine; Novell Storage Manager agents; and Action objects. This state machine architecture enables the engine to properly deal with transient waits with directory synchronization issues. It also allows recovery from failures involving network communications, a target server or a server running a component of Storage Manager—including the policy engine itself. If a failure or interruption occurs at any point during operation, Storage Manager will be able to successfully continue the operation from where it was when the interruption occurred. == Reviews == Jon Toigo called Novell Storage Manager "a robust and smart approach to corralling user files... into an organized and efficient management scheme". He also said it was "best in class" of the products he'd reviewed.

  Read more →
• 

  Secure Electronic Delivery

  Secure Electronic Delivery (SED) is a service created in 2003 and provided by the British Library Document Supply Service (BLDSS). Its purpose is to enable faster delivery of digital materials as encrypted, copyright-compliant PDF Documents, to a personal e-mail address. These documents are supplied from the British Library via its On Demand service. When the British Library supplies articles electronically, it sends them securely in order to ensure its usage is permitted (research purposes) and copyright law is observed. == Methods == As the publishing industry, authors and creators become highly protective of their assets and intellectual property, they impose strict rules on delivery methods to prevent copyright infringement. Nowadays, DRM-enabled secure delivery appears to be the most widely used solution to address issues faced by libraries in supplying ebooks and digital materials to their users. SED, one of these solutions, is using Adobe LiveCycle Digital Rights Management (LCDRM) as an encryption method to deliver documents. == Advantages == SED offers convenience, quality and speed as documents are delivered upon request at any location and on any device. Requested articles are scanned for high quality reproduction, opened anywhere on any machine, including mobile devices. == Restrictions == The following are restrictions hold in a SED service implementation: The digital material is accessible only for 14 days via a link sent to a personal message. Due to copyright reasons, the material can be opened only once, saved for 14 days and does not allow a copy-paste action. Upon display, the material must be printed from the same device and reprinted only once. The On Demand encryption technology works best on the default Safari browser although other browsers may accommodate it.

  Read more →
• 

  Interviewer effect

  The interviewer effect (also called interviewer variance or interviewer error) is the distortion of response to an interviewer-administered data collection effort which results from differential reactions to the social style and personality of interviewers or to their presentation of particular questions. The use of fixed-wording questions is one method of reducing interviewer bias. Anthropological research and case-studies are also affected by the problem, which is exacerbated by the self-fulfilling prophecy, when the researcher is also the interviewer it is also any effect on data gathered from interviewing people that is caused by the behavior or characteristics (real or perceived) of the interviewer. Interviewer effects can also be associated with the characteristics of the interviewer, such as race. Whether black respondents are interviewed by white interviewers or black interviewers has a strong impact on their responses to both attitude questions and behavioral ones. In the latter case, for example, if black respondents are interviewed by black interviewers in pre-election surveys, they are more likely to actually vote in the upcoming election than if they are interviewed by white interviewers. Furthermore, the race of the interviewer can also affect answers to factual questions that might take the form of a test of how informed the respondent is. Black respondents in a survey of political knowledge, for example, get fewer correct answers to factual questions about politics when interviewed by white interviewers than when interviewed by black interviewers. This is consistent with the research literature on stereotype threat, which finds diminished test performance of potentially stigmatised groups when the interviewer or test supervisor is from a perceived higher status group. Interviewer effects can be mitigated somewhat by randomly assigning subjects to different interviewers, or by using tools such as computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).

  Read more →
• 

  Tandem Money

  Tandem is one of the UK's original challenger banks. Tandem is a digital bank with a mobile app, and no branches. The acquisition of Harrods Bank in 2017 allowed the company to provide services using the former's banking licence. Tandem Bank Limited is authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Tandem has offices across the UK in Blackpool, Cardiff, Durham and London, employing over 500 people. == History == The company was founded by Ricky Knox, Matt Cooper and Michael Kent in 2014. In December 2016, Tandem announced that it had secured a £35 million investment from The Sanpower Group, the Chinese company that also owned the department store House of Fraser; however, £29 million of this investment was later revoked by Sanpower over concerns that the Chinese Government would object to the investment following increased restrictions on outbound investment in China. This resulted in a delay in the launch of Tandem's savings products, which, at the time of the revocation, was expected imminently and, more importantly, meant that Tandem volunteered the return of their banking license but retained all other permissions. In April 2018, Tandem launched fixed-term savings accounts, offering one-, two- and three-year terms through its app. === Acquisitions === In August 2017, it was announced that Tandem would fully acquire Harrods Bank, founded in 1893, in a deal that would bring a near-£200m loan book, over £300m of deposits and nearly £80 million of capital. Prior to its sale to Tandem Money, Harrods Bank catered for high-net-worth (HNW) individuals and operated from the Harrods store in Knightsbridge, London. It offered a variety of personal and business current and savings accounts, mortgages, foreign currency and gold bullion trading services. On 7 August 2017, Tandem Money Limited announced a deal to acquire 100% of Harrods Bank Limited shares. The purchase deal closed successfully on 11 January 2018. In March 2018, Tandem agreed to acquire Pariti Technologies Limited, developers of the Pariti money management application. In August 2020 Tandem acquired green home improvement loan specialists Allium Lending Group. It was announced on 8 February 2021 that Tandem had agreed to purchase the mortgage book from private bank Bank and Clients, consisting of 300 B&C customers for an undisclosed amount. In January 2022 Tandem Bank acquired consumer lender Oplo, creating a combined business with £1.2 billion of total assets. In April 2023, it was announced that Tandem had acquired money-sharing app Loop Money. At the time of the purchase, one of Loop's founders – Paul Pester – was also chairman at Tandem. == Features == Tandem Bank offers customers savings, mortgages, personal and secured loans, green home improvement loans and motor finance. In November 2022, the bank launched its new Tandem Marketplace, providing information and resources to help promote greener living.

  Read more →
• 

  Master data

  Master data represents "data about the business entities that provide context for business transactions". The most commonly found categories of master data are parties (individuals and organisations, and their roles, such as customers, suppliers, employees), products, financial structures (such as ledgers and cost centres) and locational concepts. Master data should be distinguished from reference data. While both provide context for business transactions, reference data is concerned with classification and categorisation, while master data is concerned with business entities. Master data is, by its nature, almost always non-transactional in nature. There exist edge cases where an organization may need to treat certain transactional processes and operations as "master data". This arises, for example, where information about master data entities, such as customers or products, is only contained within transactional data such as orders and receipts and is not housed separately. ISO 8000 is the international standard for data quality and data portability in master data. == Alternative definition == An alternative definition of the term master data is that it represents the business objects that contain the most valuable, agreed upon information shared across an organization. In this sense, it gives context to business activities and transactions, answering questions like who, what, when and how as well as expanding the ability to make sense of these activities through categorizations, groupings and hierarchies. It can cover relatively static reference data, transactional, unstructured, analytical, hierarchical and metadata. What constitutes master data under this definition is therefore not about an essential quality of the data (e.g. it is a business entity that provides context for business transactions), but rather about the context in which the organisation has decided to treat the data. == Externally-defined master data == For most organisations, most or all master data is defined and managed within that organisation. Some master data, however, may be externally defined and managed. This represents the single source of basic business data used across a marketplace, regardless of organisation or location. Thus, it can be used by multiple enterprises within a value chain, facilitating "integration of multiple data sources and literally [putting] everyone in the market on the same page." An example of market master data is the Universal Product Code (UPC) found on consumer products. == Master data management == Curating and managing master data is key to ensuring its quality and thus fitness for purpose. All aspects of an organisation, operational and analytical, are greatly dependent on the quality of an organization's master data. Master Data is therefore the focus of the information technology (IT) discipline of master data management (MDM). Without this discipline in place, organisations commonly encounter difficulties with having multiple versions of "the truth" about a business entity, both within individual applications, and distributed across applications.

  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 →