The Webby Awards (colloquially referred to as the Webbys) are awards for excellence on the Internet presented annually by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, a judging body composed of over three thousand industry experts and technology innovators. Categories include websites, advertising and media, online film and video, mobile sites and apps, and social. Two winners are selected in each category, one by members of The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, and one by the public who cast their votes during Webby People's Voice voting. Each winner presents a five-word acceptance speech, a trademark of the annual awards show. In its early years, the award was hailed as the "Internet's highest honor" and was associated with the phrase "The Oscars of the Internet." == History == In its early years, the organization was one of several vying to be the premiere internet awards show. Both shows would compare themselves to the Oscars, as did media outlets such as The New York Times to Canada's Globe & Mail. The winners of the First Annual Webby Awards in 1995 were presented by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, writers for Columbia Pictures. It was held at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel. The televised Webby Awards were sponsored by the Academy of Web Design and Cool Site of the Day. The first Webby Awards were produced by Kay Dangaard at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel as a nod to the first site of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (Oscars). That first year, they were called "Webbie" Awards. The first "Site of the Year" winner was the pioneer webisodic serial The Spot. The modern Webby Awards were co-founded by Tiffany Shlain, a filmmaker, when she was hired by The Web Magazine to re-establish them, and were first held in San Francisco in 1997. They quickly became known for its requirement that winners give their acceptance speeches in five words. After this, the awards became more successful than the magazine and IDG closed the publication. Shlain and co-founder Maya Draisin Farrah continued to run The Webby Awards until 2004. The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, which selects the winners of The Webby Awards, was established in 1998 by co-founders Tiffany Shlain, Spencer Ante and Maya Draisin. Members of the Academy include Kevin Spacey, Grimes, Questlove, Internet inventor Vint Cerf, Instagram's Head of Fashion Partnerships Eva Chen, comedian Jimmy Kimmel, Twitter founder Biz Stone, Vice Media co-founder and CEO Shane Smith, Tumblr's David Karp, Director of Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Susan P. Crawford, Refinery29's Executive Creative Director Piera Gelardi, and CEO and co-founder of Gimlet Media Alex Blumberg. The Webby Awards is owned and operated by the Webby Media Group, a division of Recognition Media, which also owns and produces the Lovie Awards in Europe and Netted by the Webbys, a daily email publication launched in 2009. David-Michel Davies, CEO of Webby Media Group, current Executive Director of the Webby Awards and co-founder of Internet Week New York, was named Executive Director of the Webby Awards in 2005. In 2009, the 13th Annual Webby Awards received nearly 10,000 entries from all 50 US states and over 60 countries. That same year, more than 500,000 votes were cast in The Webby People's Voice Awards. In 2012, the 16th Annual Webby awards received 1.5 million votes from more than 200 countries for the People's Voice awards. In 2015, the 19th Annual Webby Awards received nearly 13,000 entries from all 50 U.S. states and over 60 countries worldwide. == Nomination process == The 2000 awards began the transition to nominee submissions. Previously, nominees had been selected by an internal committee. As early as 2017, organizations wanting to nominate themselves were charged $395 for a single entry. An "ad campaign entry" would cost $595. By 2024, those fees had risen to $495 and $675, respectively. Executive Academy Members with category-specific expertise evaluate the shortlisted entries based on the appropriate Website, Advertising & Media, Online Film & Video, Mobile Sites & Apps, and Social category criteria, and cast ballots to determine Webby Honorees, Nominees and Webby Winners. Deloitte provides vote tabulation consulting for the Webby Awards. In addition to the award given in each category by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, another winner is selected in each category as determined by the general public during People's Voice voting. Winners of both the Academy-selected and People's Voice-selected awards are invited to the Webbys. == Awards granted == The Webby Awards are presented in over a hundred categories among all four types of entries. A website can be entered in multiple categories and receive multiple awards. In each category, two awards are handed out: a Webby Award selected by The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, and a People's Voice Award selected by the general public. == Ceremony == Between 2005 and 2019, the Webby Awards were presented in New York City. Many of the ceremony hosts are comedians and comedic actors. Comedian Rob Corddry hosted the ceremony from 2005 to 2007. Seth Meyers of Saturday Night Live hosted in 2008 and 2009, B.J. Novak of the sitcom The Office in 2010, and Lisa Kudrow in 2011. Comedian, actor, and writer Patton Oswalt hosted from 2012 to 2014. Comedian Hannibal Buress hosted in 2015. The Webbys are famous for limiting recipients to five-word speeches, which are often humorous, although some exceed the limit. In 2005 when accepting his Lifetime Achievement Award, former Vice President Al Gore's speech was "Please don't recount this vote." He was introduced by Vint Cerf who used the same format to state, "We all invented the Internet." In 2013, the creator of the Graphics Interchange Format (GIF), Steve Wilhite, accepted his Webby and delivered his now famous five-word speech, "It's pronounced 'Jif' not 'Gif'." == Criticism == The Webbys have been criticized for their pay-to-enter and pay-to-attend policy (winners and nominees also have to pay to attend the award ceremony), and thus for not taking most websites into consideration before distributing their awards. Gawker, its Valleywag column, and others, have called the awards a scam, with Valleywag saying, "...somewhere along the way, the organizers figured out that this goofy charade could be milked for profit." In response, Webby Awards executive director David-Michel Davies told the Wall Street Journal that entry fees "provide the best and most sustainable model for ensuring that our judging process remains consistent and rigorous and is not dependent on things like sponsorships that can fluctuate from year to year." == Anthem Awards == In 2021, the Webby organization started a new line of awards, the Anthem Awards, to honor the purpose and mission-driven work of people, companies and organizations worldwide. The finalists and winners are selected by the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences.
Mix automation
In music recording, mix automation allows the mixing console to remember the mixing engineer's dynamic adjustment of faders during a musical piece in the post-production editing process. A timecode is necessary for the synchronization of automation. Modern mixing consoles and digital audio workstations use comprehensive mix automation. The need for automated mixing originated from the late 1970s transition form 8-track to 16-track and then 24-track multitrack recording, as mixing could be laborious and require multiple people and hands, and the results could be almost impossible to reproduce. With 48-track recording - synchronized twin 24-track recorders (for a net 46 audio tracks, with one on each machine for SMPTE timecode) - came larger recording and mixing consoles with even more channel faders to manage during mixdown. Manufacturers, such as Neve Electronics (now AMS Neve) and Solid State Logic (SSL), both English companies, developed systems that enabled one engineer to oversee every detail of a complex mix, although the computers required to power these desks remained a rarity into the late 1970s. According to record producer Roy Thomas Baker, Queen's 1975 single "Bohemian Rhapsody" was one of the first mixes to be done with automation. == Types == Voltage Controlled Automation fader levels are regulated by voltage-controlled amplifiers (VCA). VCAs control the audio level and not the actual fader. Moving Fader Automation a motor is attached to the fader, which then can be controlled by the console, digital audio workstation (DAW), or user. Software Controlled Automation the software can be internal to the console, or external as part of a DAW. The virtual fader can be adjusted in the software by the user. MIDI Automation the communications protocol MIDI can be used to send messages to the console to control automation. == Modes == Auto Write used the first time automation is created or when writing over existing automation Auto Touch writes automation data only while a fader is touched/faders return to any previously automated position after release Auto Latch starts writing automation data when a fader is touched/stays in position after release Auto Read digital Audio Workstation performs the written automation Auto Off automation is temporarily disabled All of these include the mute button. If mute is pressed during writing of automation, the audio track will be muted during playback of that automation. Depending on software, other parameters such as panning, sends, and plug-in controls can be automated as well. In some cases, automation can be written using a digital potentiometer instead of a fader.
Knowledge organization system
Knowledge organization system (KOS), concept system, or concept scheme is the generic term used in knowledge organization (KO) for the selection of concepts with an indication of selected semantic relations. Despite their differences in type, coverage, and application, all KOS aim to support the organization of knowledge and information to facilitate their management and retrieval. KOS vary in complexity from simple sorted lists to complex relational networks. They represent both structural and functional features, and serve to eliminate ambiguity, control synonyms, establish relationships, and present properties. From their origins in library and information science (LIS), KOS have been applied to other domains and disciplines within science and industry, although scholarly research and debate remain primarily within the KO field. Challenges of KOS include ambiguity of terminology, repercussions of biased systems, and potential obsolescence. KOS can be expressed in RDF and RDFS as per the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) recommendation by W3C, which aims to enable the sharing and linking of KOS via the Web. One of the largest collections of KOS is the BARTOC registry. == Types == While different schema of KOS have been proposed, most are generally arranged in terms of the complexity of their construction and maintenance. Some scholars argue that organizing KOS on a spectrum oversimplifies the shared characteristics among them, and may even result in a non-ideal structure being chosen. The following types are not exhaustive, and are often not mutually-exclusive in practice. === Term lists === Term lists are the least structured form of KOS. They include lists, glossaries, dictionaries, and synonym rings. Authority files and gazetteers may also be considered term lists, however other scholars categorize them and directories as "metadata-like models". Examples include the Union List of Artist Names name authority file and the GeoNames gazetteer. === Categorization and classification === KOS that emphasize specific (and often hierarchical) structures include subject headings, taxonomies, categorization schema, and classification schema & systems. Despite inconsistent use of the terms "categorization" and "classification" in some literature, categorization is generally loosely-assembled grouping schema and may include attributes that are not mutually exclusive (or having fuzzy boundaries), while classification is related to the arrangement of non-overlapping and mutually-exclusive classes. Classification schema may be universal (such as Dewey Decimal Classification and Information Coding Classification) or domain-specific (such as the National Library of Medicine Classification). === Relationship models === The types of KOS with greatest complexity and which utilize connections between concepts include thesauri, semantic networks, and ontologies. One of the most prominent examples of a semantic network is WordNet. === Others === Certain structures proposed to be considered types of KOS—but are not consistently included in schema—include folksonomies, topic maps, web directory structures, publication organization systems, and bibliometric maps. Some KOS organize other KOS themselves—for instance, PeriodO is a gazetteer of periodization categories. == Applications == Some early KOS were developed as a support system for abstracting and indexing services to be used by specially-trained searchers. With the growth of information digitization, usability became increasingly accessible, and more complex structures were developed. Prominent examples of KOS outside of LIS include organism taxonomy in biology, the periodic table of elements in chemistry, SIC and NAICS classification systems for industry & business, and AGROVOC agricultural controlled vocabulary. == Challenges == The study and design of KOS is an ongoing topic of discussion among KO scholars. === Terminology === [There is] a serious lack of vocabulary control in the literature on controlled vocabulary. Inconsistency of terminology within the study of KOS is a common issue. For instance, "ontology" is used for both a specific type of KOS as well as a generic term for any KOS. The terms "taxonomy", "classification", and "categorization" are also sometimes used interchangeably. === Bias === As knowledge can be historically and culturally biased, scholars have also discussed how KOS themselves can perpetuate harmful practices or stereotypes. For example, a number of concerns and criticisms about the classification of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders have been raised, contributing to ongoing revisions. Ethical and intentional design approaches have been proposed for multi-perspective KOS in efforts to mitigate bias and other harmful practices. === Obsolescence === The possible obsolescence of the thesaurus and other simpler KOS has been the topic of debate, especially in the face of increasingly complex ontologies, the growing usage of "Google-like retrieval systems", and the move of KO theory and research away from LIS and toward computer science. Supporters of thesauri argue its continued usefulness for metadata enrichment, vocabulary mapping, and web services, as well as its usage in specific domains such as corporate intranets and digital image libraries.
Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex
AI: When a Robot Writes a Play
AI: When a Robot Writes a Play (in Czech: AI: Když robot píše hru) is a 2021 experimental theatre play, where 90% of its script was automatically generated by artificial intelligence (the GPT-2 language model). The play is in Czech language, but an English version of the script also exists. == Creation == The play is the first result of the THEaiTRE research project, aiming to commemorate the centenary of the R.U.R. play by Karel Čapek by investigating to what extent artificial intelligence could be used to create theatre play scripts. The script of the play was created using the THEaiTRobot tool, based on the GPT-2 language model. First, the play dramaturge, David Košťák, described the initial setting of each scene in a few sentences, and wrote the first line for each character. Next, THEaiTRobot suggested a continuation of the script, which the dramaturge could use, reject, or use part of it and let the tool generate a new continuation. Another option was to manually insert another line or a scenic remark. The script was generated in English and was automatically translated to Czech by the state-of-the-art CUBBITT machine translation tool. The resulting script was then further post-edited by the dramaturge. The resulting script was made freely available for non-commercial use both in English and in Czech, with marked manually inserted texts and manual edits. The analysis shows that 90% of the English script is automatically generated, with 10% manually written or manually post-edited. In the Czech script, a larger amount of edits were made, but the analysis claims that these additional edits are corrections of errors of the automated translation and stylistic corrections which do not change the meaning of the lines as represented by the English script, but rather bring the Czech script closer to the English one. == Characters == The play contains 9 characters. The Robot appears in all the scenes, while each of the other characters appears in only one scene. Robot – The lead character, a male humanoid robot. Master – An old man, the creator of the Robot. Boy – A schoolboy. Masseuse – A sex worker in a brothel. Stranger – An engineer. Man. Psychologist. Administrator – A female clerk at an employment agency. Actress – A film actress and a model in a robot-like costume. == Plot == The play is composed of 8 scenes. It tells the story of a humanoid robot, who encounters 8 other characters and engages into various typically human situations and activities, related to death, love, sex, violence, etc. The individual scenes are not tightly linked, but there are some linking points, such as the central character of the robot or some repeated and developing themes, such as the robot's search for love. The scenes often contain some absurd turns and it is often hard to find sense in them. It is therefore a very complicated piece interpretationally, requiring the director and the actors to invest a lot of effort and creativity in finding a meaningful interpretation which would not deviate from the script. In the interpretation by Švanda theatre, who premiered the play and who also participated on the creation of the script, the scenes typically contain non-verbally expressed content which can add a lot to the meaning of the scene compared to what is contained in the actual script (as the script only contains the lines said by the characters). === Scene 1: Death === The play opens by the Robot parting with his dying Master. The Master gives the Robot several last lessons and talks with him about death, soul, and love. === Scene 2: Sense of Humour === In the second scene, the Robot meets a sad and angry Boy, who complains that he wants to go to school, that his girlfriend is crazy, that he wants to buy a car, etc. The Robot tries to help the Boy by giving him advice, but the Boy's reactions are quite negative and irritated. The Boy then repeatedly asks the Robot to tell him a joke; the Robot keeps refusing, but ultimately tells the following joke: When you are dead. When your children are dead. When your grandchildren are dead, I will be still alive. === Scene 3: Nightclub === The Robot wants to feel pleasure, so he goes to a "night club" (a brothel), where he meets a "Masseuse" (a prostitute). The Robot is initially "a bit cold", but eventually manages to enjoy the experience and falls in love with the Masseuse. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Robot and the Masseuse seem to have a sort of virtual sex without touching each other, reminiscent of the sex scene in Demolition Man. === Scene 4: Fear of the Dark === It is the night. The Robot is standing under a lamp, unable to move away from the light as he finds that he is afraid of the dark. He meets a Stranger, an engineer who tells him that robots don't have feelings and that people cannot be trusted, and keeps hurting him. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Man repeatedly zaps the Robot with some kind of electric pulse. === Scene 5: Killer Robot === A Man approaches the Robot and repeatedly asks him to kill him. Instead, the Robot sticks a finger into the Man's anus, which leads to an argument between the Man and the Robot. === Scene 6: Burn Out === The Robot meets a Psychologist, who keeps asking him lots of questions regarding his life, burnout feeling, love, relationships, and emotions. They also talk about the Robot using a device called emotion machine which helps him to get rid of stress. === Scene 7: Search for Job === The Robot comes to an employment agency. He meets an Administrator and asks her to help him find a job. He expresses the wish to become an actor, and talks about his experience as a clown. He reveals his name to be Troy McClure, which is a character from The Simpsons who is an actor. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Administrator starts to seduce the Robot once his name is revealed, which he keeps ignoring; the Administrator then becomes irritated. === Scene 8: Love at First Sight === The Robot meets a human Actress in a robotic costume and falls in love with her immediately. The Actress is first reluctant, but the Robot manages to seduce her and she also falls in love with him. The Robot tells her about a binary world, in which he lives and where he will also take her. Ultimately, the Actress agrees, and the whole play concludes by the Robot and the Actress promising each to other to always be together. In the Švanda theatre performance, the Robot does not have a physical body in this scene, we can only hear his voice and see a pulsating light (based on the line in the script where the Robot says: "I have no body. So I don't need to wear clothes. You can't see me, you only hear me."), and the Actress eventually also agrees to lose her physical body so that she can be with the Robot forever. == Theatrical performances == The play premiered on 26 February 2021 in Švanda Theatre in Prague, Czech Republic, directed by Daniel Hrbek. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the play was not played in front of a live audience, but it was broadcast online, in Czech language with English subtitles. The play was followed by a panel discussion by the project members and experts on artificial intelligence. The premiere was viewed by 13,498 spectators worldwide. A short trailer of the premiere is available on YouTube. In 2021, after the opening of the theatres in the Czech Republic to spectators, the play can be viewed at Švanda Theatre. The performance takes approximately 60 minutes, and is followed by a discussion of the creators with the audience. The derniere is planned for 4 February 2023. == Reception == The play received a number of reviews, both in its country of origin as well as internationally. It is praised as first of its kind, although some reviewers note the similarity to previous works, such as the musical Beyond the Fence, the play Lifestyle of the Richard and Family, or the short movie Sunspring; however, these works used less advanced technology, and either were very short (Sunspring) or necessitated a larger amount of human interventions. The reviewers note that the script is far from perfect, with many inconsistencies and nonsensical parts, and conclude that the technology is definitely not yet ready to replace human authors; however, some find some parts of the script frighteningly human-like. The amount of human intervention is a somewhat controversial topic, with some reviewers finding the human influence too large (especially in interpreting the script and putting the play on scene), while others feel that a greater amount of human intervention would have been favorable as this could greatly improve the quality of the play. The reviews also frequently comment on the amount of sex, violence and strong language in the play; this can be attributed to the method used for creating the script, where the GPT-2 language model reflects topics and language common in the human-written articles on the internet that were used to train the model. Furthermore, some r
Inpainting
Inpainting is a conservation process where damaged, deteriorated, or missing parts of an artwork are filled in to present a complete image. This process is commonly used in image restoration. It can be applied to both physical and digital art mediums such as oil or acrylic paintings, chemical photographic prints, sculptures, or digital images and video. With its roots in physical artwork, such as painting and sculpture, traditional inpainting is performed by a trained art conservator who has carefully studied the artwork to determine the mediums and techniques used in the piece, potential risks of treatments, and ethical appropriateness of treatment. == History == The modern use of inpainting can be traced back to Pietro Edwards (1744–1821), Director of the Restoration of the Public Pictures in Venice, Italy. Using a scientific approach, Edwards focused his restoration efforts on the intentions of the artist. It was during the 1930 International Conference for the Study of Scientific Methods for the Examination and Preservation of Works of Art, that the modern approach to inpainting was established. Helmut Ruhemann (1891–1973), a German restorer and conservator, led the discussions on the use of inpainting in conservation. Helmut Ruhemann was a leading figure in modernizing restoration and conservation. His greatest contribution to the field of conservation "was his insistence on following the methods of the original painter exactly, and on understanding the painter's artistic intention". After his career of over 40 years as a conservator, Ruhemann published his treatise The Cleaning of Paintings: Problems & Potentialities in 1968. In describing his method, Ruhemann states that "The surface [of the fill] should be slightly lower than that of the surrounding paint to allow for the thickness of the inpainting...Inpainting medium should look and behave like the original medium, but must not darken with age." Cesare Brandi (1906–1988) developed the teoria del restauro, the inpainting approach combining aesthetics and psychology. However, this approach was used primarily by Italian restorers and conservators, with the terminology becoming widespread in the 1990s. Technological advancements led to new applications of inpainting. Widespread use of digital techniques range from entirely automatic computerized inpainting to tools used to simulate the process manually. Since the mid-1990s, the process of inpainting has evolved to include digital media. More commonly known as image or video interpolation, a form of estimation, digital inpainting includes the use of computer software that relies on sophisticated algorithms to replace lost or corrupted parts of the image data. == Ethics == In order to preserve the integrity of an original artwork, any inpainting technique or treatment applied to physical or digital work should be reversible or distinguishable from the original content of the artwork. Prior to any treatments, conservators proceed according to the American Institute of Conservation of Historical and Artistic Works. There are several ethic considerations before Inpainting can be justified. Various deliberation decisions over the ethical appropriateness of the amount and type of inpainting done, resides on many factors. As most conservation treatments, inpainting's ethical questions rest mainly with authenticity, reversibility and documentation.Any intervention to compensate for loss should be documented in treatment records and reports and should be detectable by common examination methods. Such compensation should be reversible and should not falsely modify the known aesthetic, conceptual, and physical characteristics of the cultural property, especially by removing or obscuring original material.New technologies and the aesthetic demand for perfect images without imperfections challenge conservators' ethical practices to protect the integrity of originals. == Methods == Inpainting methods and techniques depend on the desired goal and type of image being treated. Treatments to fill in the gaps are different between physical and digital art. In inpainting, detailed records of the initial state of the images can help with the treatment and replicate the original closer. === Physical inpainting === Inpainting is rooted in the conservation and restoration of paintings. Inpainting can aim to make a visual improvement to the artwork as a whole by repairing missing or damaged parts using methods and materials equivalent to the original artist's work. ==== Application techniques ==== By studying the painting methods of various artists and the composition of paints used historically, conservators are able to restore works very closely to their original visual appearance. The picture as a whole determines how to fill in the gap. Helmut Ruhemann's inpainting techniques by Jessell have procedures to "preserve" the quality of oil and tempera paintings. === Digital inpainting === Many programs are able to reconstruct missing or damaged areas of digital photographs and videos. Most widely known for use with digital images is Adobe Photoshop. Given the various abilities of the digital camera and the digitization of old photos, inpainting has become an automatic process that can be performed on digital images. The inpainting techniques can be applied to object removal, text removal, and other automatic modifications of images and videos. In video special effects, inpainting is usually performed after video matting. They can also be observed in applications like image compression and super-resolution. In photography and cinema, it is used for film restoration to reverse, repair, or mitigate deterioration (e.g., physical damage such as cracks in photographs, scratches and dust spots in film, or chemical damage resulting in image loss; performed infrared cleaning). It can also be used for removing red-eye, the stamped date from photographs, and objects for creative effect. This technique can be used to replace any lost blocks in the coding and transmission of images, for example, in a streaming video. It can also be used to remove logos or watermarks in videos. Deep learning neural network-based inpainting can be used for decensoring images. Deep image prior-based techniques can be used for digital image inpainting, where a trained deep learning model is either unavailable or infeasible. Deep models for visual content generation, like text-to-image or text-to-video, learn complex priors over the distribution of visual content, and can be used to inpaint missing parts. For example, videos can be separated into layers, using a technique called omnimatte, which either pretrain an omnimatte model or without any training using an omnimatte-zero model. Three main groups of 2D image-inpainting algorithms can be found in the literature. The first one to be noted is structural (or geometric) inpainting, the second one is texture inpainting, the last one is a combination of these two techniques. They use the information of the known or non-destroyed image areas in order to fill the gap, similar to how physical images are restored. ==== Structural ==== Structural or geometric inpainting is used for smooth images that have strong, defined borders. There are many different approaches to geometric inpainting, but they all come from the idea that geometry can be recovered from similar areas or domains. Bertalmio proposed a method of structural inpainting that mimics how conservators address painting restoration. Bertalmio proposed that by progressively transferring similar information from the borders of an inpainting domain inwards, the gap can be filled. ==== Textural ==== While structural/geometric inpainting works to repair smooth images, textural inpainting works best with images that are heavily textured. Texture has a repetitive pattern which means that a missing portion cannot be restored by continuing the level lines into the gap; level lines provide a complete, stable representation of an image. To repair texture in an image, one can combine frequency and spatial domain information to fill in a selected area with a desired texture. This method, while the most simple and very effective, works well when selecting a texture to be in-painted. For a texture that covers a wider area or a larger frame one would have to go through the image segmenting the areas to be in-painted and selecting the corresponding textures from throughout the image; there are programs that can help find the corresponding areas that work in a similar way as 'find and replace' works in a word processor. ==== Combined structural and textural ==== Combined structural and textural inpainting approaches simultaneously try to perform texture- and structure-filling in regions of missing image information. Most parts of an image consist of texture and structure and the boundaries between image regions contain a large amount of structural information. This is the result when blending differ
Archetype (information science)
In the field of informatics, an archetype is a formal re-usable model of a domain concept. Traditionally, the term archetype is used in psychology to mean an idealized model of a person, personality or behaviour (see Archetype). The usage of the term in informatics is derived from this traditional meaning, but applied to domain modelling instead. An archetype is defined by the OpenEHR Foundation (for health informatics) as follows: An archetype is a computable expression of a domain content model in the form of structured constraint statements, based on some reference model. openEHR archetypes are based on the openEHR reference model. Archetypes are all expressed in the same formalism. In general, they are defined for wide re-use, however, they can be specialized to include local particularities. They can accommodate any number of natural languages and terminologies. == Formal specifications == The modern archetype formalism is specified and maintained by the openEHR Foundation, and although originally developed for the health IT domain, is completely domain-independent, and has been used in geospatial modelling, telecommunications, and defence. The archetype formalism consists of a number of specifications including: 'ADL 1.4': original release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL) and Archetype Object Model (AOM); widely implemented in health IT domain; 'ADL 2': modern release of Archetype Definition Language (ADL), Archetype Object Model (AOM), Archetype Identification specification and Archetype Technology Overview. The Archetype Technology Overview provides a short technical overview of the archetype formalism useful for new users. The ADL/AOM 1.4 specifications were provided to ISO TC 215 in 2008 by the openEHR Foundation and became the ISO 13606-2 standard, extant until 2019. ISO TC 215 accepted the AOM 2 specification as the basis for a revision of this standard, which was issued in 2019. In late 2015, the Object Management Group (OMG) accepted an RfP entitled 'Archetype Modeling Language (AML)' as a new candidate standard. This specification is a form of ADL re-engineered as a UML profile so as to enable archetype modelling to be supported within UML tools. == Tools == A number of tools area available for working with archetypes. Most are listed on the openEHR modelling tools page. They include: ADL Designer, a modern AOM2-based web editing application Archetype Editor, an original desktop clinical modelling tool Template Designer, an original desktop clinical templating tool LinkEHR, an archetype and data integration tool ADL Workbench, reference compiler and visualiser tool == Example ==