Men and women use social media in different ways and with different frequencies. In general, several researchers have found that women tend to use social network services (SNSs) more than men and primiarly to socialize. == Differences == === Predilection for usage === Many studies have found that women are more likely to use either specific SNSs such as Facebook or MySpace or SNSs in general. In 2015, 73% of online men and 80% of online women used social networking sites. The gap in gender differences has become less apparent in LinkedIn. In 2015 about 26 percent of online men and 25% of online women used the business-and employee-oriented networking site. Researchers who have examined the gender of users of multiple SNSs have found contradictory results. Hargittai's groundbreaking 2007 study examining race, gender, and other differences between undergraduate college student users of SNSs found that women were not only more likely to have used SNSes than men but that they were also more likely to have used many different services, including Facebook, MySpace, and Friendster; these differences persisted in several models and analyses. Although she only surveyed students at one institution – the University of Illinois at Chicago – Hargittai selected that institution intentionally as "an ideal location for studies of how different kinds of people use online sites and services." In contrast, data collected by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that men were more likely to have multiple SNS profiles. Although the sample sizes of the two surveys are comparable – 1,650 Internet users in the Pew survey compared with 1,060 in Hargittai's survey – the data from the Pew survey are newer and arguably more representative of the entire adult United States population. Pinterest, Facebook, and Instagram attract more females. Picture sharing sites overall are very popular among women. Pinterest alone attracts three times as many female users than male. However, use of Pinterest by men has increased from 5% in 2012. Facebook attracts about 77% of women online. Instagram is also more likely to attract women. Men are more likely to participate in online forums like Reddit, Digg or Slashdot. One in five men claim to be a part of an online forum. === Uses === In general, women seem to use SNSs more to explicitly foster social connections. A study conducted by Pew research centers found that women were more avid users of social media. In November 2010, the gap between men and women was as high as 15%. Female participants in a multi-stage study conducted in 2007 to discover the motivations of Facebook users scored higher on scales for social connection and posting of photographs. Studies have also been conducted on the differences between females and males with regards to blogging. The Pew Research Center found that younger females are more likely to blog than males their own age, even males that are older than them. Similarly, in a study of blogs maintained in MySpace, women were found to be more likely to not only write blogs but also write about family, romantic relationships, friendships, and health in those blogs. A study of Swedish SNS users found that women were more likely to have expressions of friendship, specifically in the areas of (a) publishing photos of their friends, (b) specifically naming their best friends, and (c) writing poems to and about their friends. Women were also more likely to have expressions related to family relationships and romantic relationships. One of the key findings of this research is that those men who do have expressions of romantic relationships in their profile had expressions just as strong as the women. However, the researcher speculated that this may be in part due to a desire to publicly express heterosexual behaviors and mannerisms instead of merely expressing romantic feelings. A large-scale study of gender differences in MySpace found that both men and women tended to have a majority of female Friends, and both men and women tended to have a majority of female "Top" Friends in the site. A later study found women to author disproportionately many (public) comments in MySpace, but an investigation into the role of emotion in public MySpace comments found that women both give and receive stronger positive emotion. It was hypothesised that women are simply more effective at using social networking sites because they are better able to harness positive emotion. A study focused on the influence of gender and personality on individuals' use of online social networking websites such as Facebook, reported that men use social networking sites with the intention of forming new relationships, whereas, women use them more for relationship maintenance. In addition to this, women are more likely to use Facebook or MySpace to compare themselves to others and also to search for information. Men, however, are more likely to look at other people's profiles with in the intention to find friends. Women were less successful at actually finding new friends, but more successful at "maintaining existing relationships, making new relationships, using for academic purposes and following specific agenda". Similarly, men also self-reported this motivation "while women reported using them more for relationship maintenance". === Personality === OCEAN personality traits are known to systematically vary between human males and females. In one study, the same women were more extraverted and agreeable, such as less neurotic while on social media than offline. Other studies associated neuroticism with female use of social media. === Privacy === Privacy has been the primary topic of many studies of SNS users, and many of these studies have found differences between male and female SNS users, although some studies have found results contradictory to those found in other studies. Some researchers have found that women are more protective of their personal information and more likely to have private profiles. Other researchers have found that women are less likely to post some types of information. Acquisti and Gross found that women in their sample were less likely to reveal their sexual orientation, personal address, or cell phone number. This is similar to Pew Internet & American Life research of children users of SNSs that found that boys and girls presented different views of privacy and behaviors, with girls being more concerned about and restrictive of information such as city, town, last name, and cell phone number that could be used to locate them. At least one group of researchers has found that women are less likely to share information that "identifies them directly – last name, cell phone number, and address or home phone number," linking that resistance to women's greater concerns about "cyberstalking", "cyberbullying", and security problems. Despite these concerns about privacy, researchers have found that women are more likely to maintain up-to-date photos of themselves. Further, Kolek and Saunders found in their sample of college student Facebook users that women were more likely to not only post a photograph of themselves in their profile but that they were more likely to have a publicly viewable Facebook account (a contradictory finding compared to many other studies), post photos, and post photo albums. Women were more likely to have: (a) a publicly viewable Facebook account, (b) more photo albums, (c) more photos, (d) a photo of themselves as their profile picture, (e) positive references to alcohol, partying, or drugs, and (f) more positive references to or about the institution or institution-related activities. In general, women were more likely to disclose information about themselves in their Facebook profile, with the primary exception of sharing their telephone number. Similarly, female respondents to Strano's study were more likely to keep their profile photo recent and choose a photo that made them appear attractive, happy, and fun-loving. Citing several examples, Strano opined that there may also be a difference in how men and women Facebook users display and interpret profile photos depicting relationships. Privacy has also been a concern for the SnapChat app, which allows you to send messages either text or photo or video which then disappear. One study has shown that security is not a major concern for the majority of users and that most do not use Snapchat to send sensitive content (although up to 25% may do so experimentally). As part of their research almost no statistically significant gender differences were found. === Cyberbullying === Past research carried out to investigate if there are any gender differences in cyber-bullying has found that boys commit more cyber verbal bullying, cyber forgery and more violence based on hidden identity or presenting themselves as other person. === Mansplaining === A 2021 article found that mansplaining could be seen more prominent online rather than offl
Cache language model
A cache language model is a type of statistical language model. These occur in the natural language processing subfield of computer science and assign probabilities to given sequences of words by means of a probability distribution. Statistical language models are key components of speech recognition systems and of many machine translation systems: they tell such systems which possible output word sequences are probable and which are improbable. The particular characteristic of a cache language model is that it contains a cache component and assigns relatively high probabilities to words or word sequences that occur elsewhere in a given text. The primary, but by no means sole, use of cache language models is in speech recognition systems. To understand why it is a good idea for a statistical language model to contain a cache component one might consider someone who is dictating a letter about elephants to a speech recognition system. Standard (non-cache) N-gram language models will assign a very low probability to the word "elephant" because it is a very rare word in English. If the speech recognition system does not contain a cache component, the person dictating the letter may be annoyed: each time the word "elephant" is spoken another sequence of words with a higher probability according to the N-gram language model may be recognized (e.g., "tell a plan"). These erroneous sequences will have to be deleted manually and replaced in the text by "elephant" each time "elephant" is spoken. If the system has a cache language model, "elephant" will still probably be misrecognized the first time it is spoken and will have to be entered into the text manually; however, from this point on the system is aware that "elephant" is likely to occur again – the estimated probability of occurrence of "elephant" has been increased, making it more likely that if it is spoken it will be recognized correctly. Once "elephant" has occurred several times, the system is likely to recognize it correctly every time it is spoken until the letter has been completely dictated. This increase in the probability assigned to the occurrence of "elephant" is an example of a consequence of machine learning and more specifically of pattern recognition. There exist variants of the cache language model in which not only single words but also multi-word sequences that have occurred previously are assigned higher probabilities (e.g., if "San Francisco" occurred near the beginning of the text subsequent instances of it would be assigned a higher probability). The cache language model was first proposed in a paper published in 1990, after which the IBM speech-recognition group experimented with the concept. The group found that implementation of a form of cache language model yielded a 24% drop in word-error rates once the first few hundred words of a document had been dictated. A detailed survey of language modeling techniques concluded that the cache language model was one of the few new language modeling techniques that yielded improvements over the standard N-gram approach: "Our caching results show that caching is by far the most useful technique for perplexity reduction at small and medium training data sizes". The development of the cache language model has generated considerable interest among those concerned with computational linguistics in general and statistical natural language processing in particular: recently, there has been interest in applying the cache language model in the field of statistical machine translation. The success of the cache language model in improving word prediction rests on the human tendency to use words in a "bursty" fashion: when one is discussing a certain topic in a certain context, the frequency with which one uses certain words will be quite different from their frequencies when one is discussing other topics in other contexts. The traditional N-gram language models, which rely entirely on information from a very small number (four, three, or two) of words preceding the word to which a probability is to be assigned, do not adequately model this "burstiness". Recently, the cache language model concept – originally conceived for the N-gram statistical language model paradigm – has been adapted for use in the neural paradigm. For instance, recent work on continuous cache language models in the recurrent neural network (RNN) setting has applied the cache concept to much larger contexts than before, yielding significant reductions in perplexity. Another recent line of research involves incorporating a cache component in a feed-forward neural language model (FN-LM) to achieve rapid domain adaptation.
International Philosophical Bibliography
The International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB), also known in French as Répertoire bibliographique de la philosophie (RBP), is a bibliographic database covering publications on the history of philosophy and continental philosophy. The database comprises records of publications in over 30 languages. Annually, about 12,000 records are added. The indexes include, among other elements, over 84,000 names of authors, editors, translators, reviewers, and collaborators, as well as more than 3,000 commentaries on philosophical works, making it the world's most complete index in Philosophy. Since 1934, the IPB has been developed by the Higher Institute of Philosophy at the University of Louvain (UCLouvain), first in Leuven and since 1978 in Louvain-la-Neuve. The online version was launched by Peeters Publishers in 1997 and continues to be updated quarterly.
Randomized rounding
In computer science and operations research, randomized rounding is a widely used approach for designing and analyzing approximation algorithms. Many combinatorial optimization problems are computationally intractable to solve exactly (to optimality). For such problems, randomized rounding can be used to design fast (polynomial time) approximation algorithms—that is, algorithms that are guaranteed to return an approximately optimal solution given any input. The basic idea of randomized rounding is to convert an optimal solution of a relaxation of the problem into an approximately-optimal solution to the original problem. The resulting algorithm is usually analyzed using the probabilistic method. == Overview == The basic approach has three steps: Formulate the problem to be solved as an integer linear program (ILP). Compute an optimal fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} to the linear programming relaxation (LP) of the ILP. Round the fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP to an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the ILP. (Although the approach is most commonly applied with linear programs, other kinds of relaxations are sometimes used. For example, see Goemans' and Williamson's semidefinite programming-based Max-Cut approximation algorithm.) In the first step, the challenge is to choose a suitable integer linear program. Familiarity with linear programming, in particular modelling using linear programs and integer linear programs, is required. For many problems, there is a natural integer linear program that works well, such as in the Set Cover example below. (The integer linear program should have a small integrality gap; indeed randomized rounding is often used to prove bounds on integrality gaps.) In the second step, the optimal fractional solution can typically be computed in polynomial time using any standard linear programming algorithm. In the third step, the fractional solution must be converted into an integer solution (and thus a solution to the original problem). This is called rounding the fractional solution. The resulting integer solution should (provably) have cost not much larger than the cost of the fractional solution. This will ensure that the cost of the integer solution is not much larger than the cost of the optimal integer solution. The main technique used to do the third step (rounding) is to use randomization, and then to use probabilistic arguments to bound the increase in cost due to the rounding (following the probabilistic method from combinatorics). Therein, probabilistic arguments are used to show the existence of discrete structures with desired properties. In this context, one uses such arguments to show the following: Given any fractional solution x {\displaystyle x} of the LP, with positive probability the randomized rounding process produces an integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that approximates x {\displaystyle x} according to some desired criterion. Finally, to make the third step computationally efficient, one either shows that x ′ {\displaystyle x'} approximates x {\displaystyle x} with high probability (so that the step can remain randomized) or one derandomizes the rounding step, typically using the method of conditional probabilities. The latter method converts the randomized rounding process into an efficient deterministic process that is guaranteed to reach a good outcome. == Example: the set cover problem == The following example illustrates how randomized rounding can be used to design an approximation algorithm for the set cover problem. Fix any instance ⟨ c , S ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle c,{\mathcal {S}}\rangle } of set cover over a universe U {\displaystyle {\mathcal {U}}} . === Computing the fractional solution === For step 1, let IP be the standard integer linear program for set cover for this instance. For step 2, let LP be the linear programming relaxation of IP, and compute an optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} to LP using any standard linear programming algorithm. This takes time polynomial in the input size. The feasible solutions to LP are the vectors x {\displaystyle x} that assign each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} a non-negative weight x s {\displaystyle x_{s}} , such that, for each element e ∈ U {\displaystyle e\in {\mathcal {U}}} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} covers e {\displaystyle e} —the total weight assigned to the sets containing e {\displaystyle e} is at least 1, that is, ∑ s ∋ e x s ≥ 1. {\displaystyle \sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}\geq 1.} The optimal solution x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a feasible solution whose cost ∑ s ∈ S c ( S ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(S)x_{s}^{}} is as small as possible. Note that any set cover C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} for S {\displaystyle {\mathcal {S}}} gives a feasible solution x {\displaystyle x} (where x s = 1 {\displaystyle x_{s}=1} for s ∈ C {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {C}}} , x s = 0 {\displaystyle x_{s}=0} otherwise). The cost of this C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {C}}} equals the cost of x {\displaystyle x} , that is, ∑ s ∈ C c ( s ) = ∑ s ∈ S c ( s ) x s . {\displaystyle \sum _{s\in {\mathcal {C}}}c(s)=\sum _{s\in {\mathcal {S}}}c(s)x_{s}.} In other words, the linear program LP is a relaxation of the given set-cover problem. Since x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} has minimum cost among feasible solutions to the LP, the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover. === Randomized rounding step === In step 3, we must convert the minimum-cost fractional set cover x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} into a feasible integer solution x ′ {\displaystyle x'} (corresponding to a true set cover). The rounding step should produce an x ′ {\displaystyle x'} that, with positive probability, has cost within a small factor of the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} .Then (since the cost of x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is a lower bound on the cost of the optimal set cover), the cost of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} will be within a small factor of the optimal cost. As a starting point, consider the most natural rounding scheme: For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( 1 , x s ∗ ) {\displaystyle \min(1,x_{s}^{})} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . With this rounding scheme, the expected cost of the chosen sets is at most ∑ s c ( s ) x s ∗ {\displaystyle \sum _{s}c(s)x_{s}^{}} , the cost of the fractional cover. This is good. Unfortunately the coverage is not good. When the variables x s ∗ {\displaystyle x_{s}^{}} are small, the probability that an element e {\displaystyle e} is not covered is about ∏ s ∋ e 1 − x s ∗ ≈ ∏ s ∋ e exp ( − x s ∗ ) = exp ( − ∑ s ∋ e x s ∗ ) ≈ exp ( − 1 ) . {\displaystyle \prod _{s\ni e}1-x_{s}^{}\approx \prod _{s\ni e}\exp(-x_{s}^{})=\exp {\Big (}-\sum _{s\ni e}x_{s}^{}{\Big )}\approx \exp(-1).} So only a constant fraction of the elements will be covered in expectation. To make x ′ {\displaystyle x'} cover every element with high probability, the standard rounding scheme first scales up the rounding probabilities by an appropriate factor λ > 1 {\displaystyle \lambda >1} . Here is the standard rounding scheme: Fix a parameter λ ≥ 1 {\displaystyle \lambda \geq 1} . For each set s ∈ S {\displaystyle s\in {\mathcal {S}}} in turn, take x s ′ = 1 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=1} with probability min ( λ x s ∗ , 1 ) {\displaystyle \min(\lambda x_{s}^{},1)} , otherwise take x s ′ = 0 {\displaystyle x'_{s}=0} . Scaling the probabilities up by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } increases the expected cost by λ {\displaystyle \lambda } , but makes coverage of all elements likely. The idea is to choose λ {\displaystyle \lambda } as small as possible so that all elements are provably covered with non-zero probability. Here is a detailed analysis. ==== Lemma (approximation guarantee for rounding scheme) ==== Fix λ = ln ( 2 | U | ) {\displaystyle \lambda =\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)} . With positive probability, the rounding scheme returns a set cover x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of cost at most 2 ln ( 2 | U | ) c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\ln(2|{\mathcal {U}}|)c\cdot x^{}} (and thus of cost O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} times the cost of the optimal set cover). (Note: with care the O ( log | U | ) {\displaystyle O(\log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} can be reduced to ln ( | U | ) + O ( log log | U | ) {\displaystyle \ln(|{\mathcal {U}}|)+O(\log \log |{\mathcal {U}}|)} .) ==== Proof ==== The output x ′ {\displaystyle x'} of the random rounding scheme has the desired properties as long as none of the following "bad" events occur: the cost c ⋅ x ′ {\displaystyle c\cdot x'} of x ′ {\displaystyle x'} exceeds 2 λ c ⋅ x ∗ {\displaystyle 2\lambda c\cdot x^{}} , or for some element e {\displaystyle e} , x ′ {\displaystyle x'} fails to cover e {\displaystyle e} . The expectation of each x s ′ {\displaystyle x'_{s}} is at most λ x s ∗ {\displaystyle \lambda x_{s
Xulvi-Brunet–Sokolov algorithm
Xulvi-Brunet and Sokolov's algorithm generates networks with chosen degree correlations. This method is based on link rewiring, in which the desired degree is governed by parameter ρ. By varying this single parameter it is possible to generate networks from random (when ρ = 0) to perfectly assortative or disassortative (when ρ = 1). This algorithm allows to keep network's degree distribution unchanged when changing the value of ρ. == Assortative model == In assortative networks, well-connected nodes are likely to be connected to other highly connected nodes. Social networks are examples of assortative networks. This means that an assortative network has the property that almost all nodes with the same degree are linked only between themselves. The Xulvi-Brunet–Sokolov algorithm for this type of networks is the following. In a given network, two links connecting four different nodes are chosen randomly. These nodes are ordered by their degrees. Then, with probability ρ, the links are randomly rewired in such a way that one link connects the two nodes with the smaller degrees and the other connects the two nodes with the larger degrees. If one or both of these links already existed in the network, the step is discarded and is repeated again. Thus, there will be no self-connected nodes or multiple links connecting the same two nodes. Different degrees of assortativity of a network can be achieved by changing the parameter ρ. Assortative networks are characterized by highly connected groups of nodes with similar degree. As assortativity grows, the average path length and clustering coefficient increase. == Disassortative model == In disassortative networks, highly connected nodes tend to connect to less-well-connected nodes with larger probability than in uncorrelated networks. Examples of such networks include biological networks. The Xulvi-Brunet and Sokolov's algorithm for this type of networks is similar to the one for assortative networks with one minor change. As before, two links of four nodes are randomly chosen and the nodes are ordered with respect to their degrees. However, in this case, the links are rewired (with probability p) such that one link connects the highest connected node with the node with the lowest degree and the other link connects the two remaining nodes randomly with probability 1 − ρ. Similarly, if the new links already existed, the previous step is repeated. This algorithm does not change the degree of nodes and thus the degree distribution of the network.
Random (software)
Random was an iOS mobile app that used algorithms and human-curation to create an adaptive interface to the Internet. The app served a remix of relevance and serendipity that allowed people to find diverse topics and interesting content that they might not have encountered otherwise. Random did not require a login or sign-up - the use of the app was anonymous. The app was powered by an artificial intelligence that learned from direct and indirect user interactions inside the app. While learning and adapting to a person, Random created a unique anonymous choice profile that was then used for recommending topics and content. The app didn't recommend the same content twice. == User interface == Random's user interface was made of ever-changing topic blocks that contained keywords and images. By choosing any of the blocks, the user would see related web content. By closing the web content, the user could access new related topics. The user interface allowed people to get more information about a specific topic area or then just leap freely from topic to topic. The content recommended by Random could be any type of web content, varying from news articles to long-form stories and from photographs to videos. Every user of the Random was curating content for other users by using the app. == History == Random was launched in March 2014. The startup was backed by Skype co-founder Janus Friis. The Random app received a strong reception from the likes of The New York Times, TechCrunch, New Scientist, Vice, and other leading publications. The app went on to gain traction with an active and loyal user community of several hundreds of thousands. This was not enough to support the free app model the team strongly believed in, and the service was terminated in December 2015. == Reception == Various reviews in media have emphasized that Random enables people to break their filter bubble and find diverse content they might not find elsewhere. Alan Henry of Lifehacker wrote: "Random... breaks you out by intentionally guiding you to new topics and interesting articles at sites you may not otherwise read." Vice Motherboard's Claire Evans says that: "Random never turns into a filter bubble, because it perpetually injects the irrational into my experience… in a cocktail of relevancy and serendipity." The app has been said to have a unique, minimalistic user experience. Kit Eaton of The New York Times commented that Random "let's you browse the news in a different way to all the other news sites you've probably ever used." Mashable reviewed Random by concluding that the "app may be one of the most simple content-discovery apps on the market."
Ecoinformatics
Ecoinformatics, or ecological informatics, is the science of information in ecology and environmental science. It integrates environmental and information sciences to define entities and natural processes with language common to both humans and computers. However, this is a rapidly developing area in ecology and there are alternative perspectives on what constitutes ecoinformatics. A few definitions have been circulating, mostly centered on the creation of tools to access and analyze natural system data. However, the scope and aims of ecoinformatics are certainly broader than the development of metadata standards to be used in documenting datasets. Ecoinformatics aims to facilitate environmental research and management by developing ways to access, integrate databases of environmental information, and develop new algorithms enabling different environmental datasets to be combined to test ecological hypotheses. Ecoinformatics is related to the concept of ecosystem services. Ecoinformatics characterize the semantics of natural system knowledge. For this reason, much of today's ecoinformatics research relates to the branch of computer science known as knowledge representation, and active ecoinformatics projects are developing links to activities such as the Semantic Web. Current initiatives to effectively manage, share, and reuse ecological data are indicative of the increasing importance of fields like ecoinformatics to develop the foundations for effectively managing ecological information. Examples of these initiatives are National Science Foundation Datanet projects, DataONE, Data Conservancy, and Artificial Intelligence for Environment & Sustainability. == Software Development Lifecycle == Central to the concept of ecoinformatics is the Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC), a systematic framework for writing, implementing, and maintaining software products. Typically in Ecoinformatics projects, the development pipeline includes data collection, usually from several different environmental data sources, then integrating these data sources together, and then analyzing the data. Here, each step of the SDLC is described in the context of ecoinformatics, per Michener et al. It is important to note that the plan, collect, assure, describes and preserve steps refer to the data collection entity, which can be individual researchers or large data-collection networks, while the discover, integrate, and analyze steps typically refer to the individual researcher. Plan: Ecoinformatics projects require data from several databases. Each database holds different data, and therefore researchers should identify what types of environmental or ecological data they will need to answer their research question. Collect: Data is collected in several different ways. In ecoinformatics, this is usually restricted to manually entering data into a spreadsheet, and parsing data from an existing database. The growth of relational databases has made it easier for ecologists to download relevant data and integrate datasets together Assure: Data entries should be checked thoroughly to validate their accuracy and usability, such as to check for outliers and erroneous points. The same principle applies to data downloaded from datasets. This responsibility falls on both the ecologist downloading the data, and the entity that sets up the data collection system. Describe: An accurate description of the metadata of a dataset that is used in a study should include enough information to deduce the data collection and processing methodology, when the data were collected, why the data were collected, and how the data were stored. This is important for reproducibility, especially for projects that build on each other and may recycle data Preserve: After data is collected by an institutional entity, it should be archived such that it is easily accessible. Ideally, this is in databases that are maintained and not at risk of deprecation Discover: While there are good practices for discovering data to start a research project, this process is often marred by a lack of usable, published data, as researchers may collect data specific to their study, but may not publish this data for wider use. On the data collection end, this can be addressed by better data-sharing practices, such as by linking datasets when publishing papers or studies. On the data procurement end, this can be addressed by more precise data searching, such as using key words to find relevant datasets. Integrate: Synthesizing datasets together can be difficult and labor-intensive, largely due to the methodological differences in data collection. There are several approaches to this, but the best practices typically involve computational approaches, namely using R or Python, to automate the processes and prevent errors Analyze: Data analysis can take several forms, and should be tailored to the specific ecological project. However, all data analysis methods should be well-documented, including the procedure for analysis, justification for analysis methods, and any shortcomings in a specific approach. == Applications of Ecoinformatics Across Ecology == === Ecosystem Ecology === Source: Ecosystem studies, by definition, encompass interactions across the entire life sciences spectrum, from microscopic biochemical reactions to large-scale geological phenomena. As a result, big databases may not be designed specifically for any particular research question, but should be inclusive enough to support most studies. Since ecosystem-level questions require a broad perspective, data-related ecosystem projects would likely incorporate data from several databases. A common framework for incorporating data into ecosystem-level studies is the network science model, in which data collection mechanisms and resources are treated like a large, interconnected network instead of individual entities. The network may include several data collection stations within one databases, or may span across multiple databases. Currently there are several large-scale networks, but they do not generate data on the scale to consider ecology as a big data science. A current challenge for ecoinformatics in ecosystem ecology is that most funding is prioritized for generating new data rather than maintaining existing data infrastructures. Integrating data across the different spatial scales can also be difficult, since each dataset may hold different types of data. === Urban Ecology === Source: The current push for smart cities, and sensor network integration into infrastructure, has positioned as a major source of data for ecological studies. Typical urban ecology questions address the effects of urbanization on the local ecosystem, and how to drive future development to promote urban biodiversity. While sensor networks in cities typically collect environmental data to optimize city processes, they may also be used for ecological initiatives, especially with respect to understanding the complex, multi-layered relationship between cities and their local ecosystem. It can also be used to better understand the current landscape of cities, and identify avenues for rewinding of cities. For example, analyzing mobility patterns can identify areas that may lend themselves well to building parks and green spaces. Bird watching data can also be used to identify the types of bird species in a local area. === Infectious Disease === Source: Like other disciplines of ecology, emerging infectious disease and epidemiology span multiple scales, from understanding the genetics that drive disease trends to large-scale spatiotemporal analyses. As a result, infectious disease studies can incorporate everything from bioinformatics, genetic sequences, amino acid sequences, and environmental observation data. On the micro-scale, these data can then be used to predict infectivity/transmissibility, drug resistance, drug candidates, and mutation sites. On the macro-scale, it can be used to identify societal trends or environmental factors that lend themselves to spillover, locations of infection, and practices that cause disease transmission. == Databases == Source: USGS National Streamflow sensor network GBIF Neotoma Paleobiology database European Vegetation Archive USDA Forest Inventory Analysis TRY BIEN AmeriFlux TEAM iNaturalist NEON GLEON LTER CZO TERN SAEON