AI Chat Bots Like Character AI

AI Chat Bots Like Character AI — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Generative art

  Generative art is post-conceptual art that has been created (in whole or in part) with the use of an autonomous system. An autonomous system in this context is generally one that is non-human and can independently determine features of an artwork that would otherwise require decisions made directly by the artist. In some cases the human creator may claim that the generative system represents their own artistic idea, and in others that the system takes on the role of the creator. "Generative art" often refers to algorithmic art (algorithmically determined computer generated artwork) and synthetic media (general term for any algorithmically generated media), but artists can also make generative art using systems of chemistry, biology, mechanics and robotics, smart materials, manual randomization, mathematics, data mapping, symmetry, and tiling. Generative algorithms, algorithms programmed to produce artistic works through predefined rules, stochastic methods, or procedural logic, often yielding dynamic, unique, and contextually adaptable outputs—are central to many of these practices. == History == The use of the word "generative" in the discussion of art has developed over time. The use of "Artificial DNA" defines a generative approach to art focused on the construction of a system able to generate unpredictable events, all with a recognizable common character. The use of autonomous systems, required by some contemporary definitions, focuses a generative approach where the controls are strongly reduced. This approach is also named "emergent". Margaret Boden and Ernest Edmonds have noted the use of the term "generative art" in the broad context of automated computer graphics in the 1960s, beginning with artwork exhibited by Georg Nees and Frieder Nake in 1965: A. Michael Noll did his initial computer art, combining randomness with order, in 1962, and exhibited it along with works by Bell Julesz in 1965. The terms "generative art" and "computer art" have been used in tandem, and more or less interchangeably, since the very earliest days. The first such exhibition showed the work of Nees in February 1965, which some claim was titled "Generative Computergrafik". While Nees does not himself remember, this was the title of his doctoral thesis published a few years later. The correct title of the first exhibition and catalog was "computer-grafik". "Generative art" and related terms was in common use by several other early computer artists around this time, including Manfred Mohr and Ken Knowlton. Vera Molnár (born 1924) is a French media artist of Hungarian origin. Molnar is widely considered to be a pioneer of generative art, and is also one of the first women to use computers in her art practice. The term "Generative Art" with the meaning of dynamic artwork-systems able to generate multiple artwork-events was clearly used the first time for the "Generative Art" conference in Milan in 1998. The term has also been used to describe geometric abstract art where simple elements are repeated, transformed, or varied to generate more complex forms. Thus defined, generative art was practiced by the Argentinian artists Eduardo Mac Entyre and Miguel Ángel Vidal in the late 1960s. In 1972 the Romanian-born Paul Neagu created the Generative Art Group in Britain. It was populated exclusively by Neagu using aliases such as "Hunsy Belmood" and "Edward Larsocchi". In 1972 Neagu gave a lecture titled 'Generative Art Forms' at the Queen's University, Belfast Festival. In 1970 the School of the Art Institute of Chicago created a department called Generative Systems. As described by Sonia Landy Sheridan the focus was on art practices using the then new technologies for the capture, inter-machine transfer, printing and transmission of images, as well as the exploration of the aspect of time in the transformation of image information. Also noteworthy is John Dunn, first a student and then a collaborator of Sheridan. In 1988 Clauser identified the aspect of systemic autonomy as a critical element in generative art: It should be evident from the above description of the evolution of generative art that process (or structuring) and change (or transformation) are among its most definitive features, and that these features and the very term 'generative' imply dynamic development and motion. (the result) is not a creation by the artist but rather the product of the generative process - a self-precipitating structure. In 1989 Celestino Soddu defined the Generative Design approach to Architecture and Town Design in his book Citta' Aleatorie. In 1989 Franke referred to "generative mathematics" as "the study of mathematical operations suitable for generating artistic images." From the mid-1990s Brian Eno popularized the terms generative music and generative systems, making a connection with earlier experimental music by Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass. From the end of the 20th century, communities of generative artists, designers, musicians and theoreticians began to meet, forming cross-disciplinary perspectives. The first meeting about generative Art was in 1998, at the inaugural International Generative Art conference at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. In Australia, the Iterate conference on generative systems in the electronic arts followed in 1999. On-line discussion has centered around the eu-gene mailing list, which began late 1999, and has hosted much of the debate which has defined the field. These activities have more recently been joined by the Generator.x conference in Berlin starting in 2005. In 2012 the new journal GASATHJ, Generative Art Science and Technology Hard Journal was founded by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella jointing several generative artists and scientists in the editorial board. Some have argued that as a result of this engagement across disciplinary boundaries, the community has converged on a shared meaning of the term. As Boden and Edmonds put it in 2011: Today, the term "Generative Art" is still current within the relevant artistic community. Since 1998 a series of conferences have been held in Milan with that title (Generativeart.com), and Brian Eno has been influential in promoting and using generative art methods (Eno, 1996). Both in music and in visual art, the use of the term has now converged on work that has been produced by the activation of a set of rules and where the artist lets a computer system take over at least some of the decision-making (although, of course, the artist determines the rules). In the call of the Generative Art conferences in Milan (annually starting from 1998), the definition of Generative Art by Celestino Soddu: Generative Art is the idea realized as genetic code of artificial events, as construction of dynamic complex systems able to generate endless variations. Each Generative Project is a concept-software that works producing unique and non-repeatable events, like music or 3D Objects, as possible and manifold expressions of the generating idea strongly recognizable as a vision belonging to an artist / designer / musician / architect /mathematician. Discussion on the eu-gene mailing list was framed by the following definition by Adrian Ward from 1999: Generative art is a term given to work which stems from concentrating on the processes involved in producing an artwork, usually (although not strictly) automated by the use of a machine or computer, or by using mathematic or pragmatic instructions to define the rules by which such artworks are executed. A similar definition is provided by Philip Galanter: Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art. Around the 2020s, generative AI models learned to imitate the distinct style of particular authors. For example, a generative image model such as Stable Diffusion is able to model the stylistic characteristics of an artist like Pablo Picasso (including his particular brush strokes, use of colour, perspective, and so on), and a user can engineer a prompt such as "an astronaut riding a horse, by Picasso" to cause the model to generate a novel image applying the artist's style to an arbitrary subject. Generative image models have received significant backlash from artists who object to their style being imitated without their permission, arguing that this harms their ability to profit from their own work. The emergence of text-to-image generative AI systems has expanded debates over authorship, copyright, and artistic labor. The main issues in these debates include the eligibility of AI-generated outputs for copyright protection and the legal and ethical questions of using existing copyrighted works as training data for generative AI systems. == Types == === Music === Johann Kirnberger's Mu

  Read more →
• 

  Research data archiving

  Research data archiving is the long-term storage of scholarly research data, including the natural sciences, social sciences, and life sciences. The various academic journals have differing policies regarding how much of their data and methods researchers are required to store in a public archive, and what is actually archived varies widely between different disciplines. Similarly, the major grant-giving institutions have varying attitudes towards public archiving of data. In general, the tradition of science has been for publications to contain sufficient information to allow fellow researchers to replicate and therefore test the research. In recent years this approach has become increasingly strained as research in some areas depends on large datasets which cannot easily be replicated independently. Data archiving is more important in some fields than others. In a few fields, all of the data necessary to replicate the work is already available in the journal article. In drug development, a great deal of data is generated and must be archived so researchers can verify that the reports the drug companies publish accurately reflect the data. Often used interchangeably, Data preservation and data archiving are both about protecting data for the long term, but they serve different purposes. Data preservation focuses on preventing data from being lost, damaged, or destroyed by creating backups, storing data in secure locations, and ensuring it remains accessible when needed. Data archiving, on the other hand, involves moving data that is no longer actively used to a separate storage location for long-term keeping. Archived data is often combined and compressed, and while it can still be accessed, it is not intended for regular use or frequent updates. The requirement of data archiving is a recent development in the history of science. It was made possible by advances in information technology allowing large amounts of data to be stored and accessed from central locations. For example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) adopted their first policy on data archiving in 1993, about three years after the beginning of the WWW. This policy mandates that datasets cited in AGU papers must be archived by a recognised data center; it permits the creation of "data papers"; and it establishes AGU's role in maintaining data archives. But it makes no requirements on paper authors to archive their data. Prior to organized data archiving, researchers wanting to evaluate or replicate a paper would have to request data and methods information from the author. The academic community expects authors to share supplemental data. This process was recognized as wasteful of time and energy and obtained mixed results. Information could become lost or corrupted over the years. In some cases, authors simply refuse to provide the information. The need for data archiving and due diligence is greatly increased when the research deals with health issues or public policy formation. == Selected policies by journals == === Biotropica === Biotropica requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper and metadata describing them must be archived in an appropriate public archive such as Dryad, Figshare, GenBank, TreeBASE, or NCBI. Authors may elect to make the data publicly available as soon as the article is published or, if the technology of the archive allows, embargo access to the data up to three years after article publication. A statement describing Data Availability will be included in the manuscript as described in the instructions to authors. Exceptions to the required archiving of data may be granted at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief for studies that include sensitive information (e.g., the location of endangered species). Our Editorial explaining the motivation for this policy can be found here. A more comprehensive list of data repositories is available here. Promoting a culture of collaboration with researchers who collect and archive data: The data collected by tropical biologists are often long-term, complex, and expensive to collect. The Board of Editors of Biotropica strongly encourages authors who re-use data archives archived data sets to include as fully engaged collaborators the scientists who originally collected them. We feel this will greatly enhance the quality and impact of the resulting research by drawing on the data collector’s profound insights into the natural history of the study system, reducing the risk of errors in novel analyses, and stimulating the cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and training for which the ATBC and Biotropica are widely recognized. NB: Biotropica is one of only two journals that pays the fees for authors depositing data at Dryad. === The American Naturalist === The American Naturalist requires authors to deposit the data associated with accepted papers in a public archive. For gene sequence data and phylogenetic trees, deposition in GenBank or TreeBASE, respectively, is required. There are many possible archives that may suit a particular data set, including the Dryad repository for ecological and evolutionary biology data. All accession numbers for GenBank, TreeBASE, and Dryad must be included in accepted manuscripts before they go to Production. If the data is deposited somewhere else, please provide a link. If the data is culled from published literature, please deposit the collated data in Dryad for the convenience of your readers. Any impediments to data sharing should be brought to the attention of the editors at the time of submission so that appropriate arrangements can be worked out. === Journal of Heredity === The primary data underlying the conclusions of an article are critical to the verifiability and transparency of the scientific enterprise, and should be preserved in usable form for decades in the future. For this reason, Journal of Heredity requires that newly reported nucleotide or amino acid sequences, and structural coordinates, be submitted to appropriate public databases (e.g., GenBank; the EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database; DNA Database of Japan; the Protein Data Bank; and Swiss-Prot). Accession numbers must be included in the final version of the manuscript. For other forms of data (e.g., microsatellite genotypes, linkage maps, images), the Journal endorses the principles of the Joint Data Archiving Policy (JDAP) in encouraging all authors to archive primary datasets in an appropriate public archive, such as Dryad, TreeBASE, or the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity. Authors are encouraged to make data publicly available at time of publication or, if the technology of the archive allows, opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. The American Genetic Association also recognizes the vast investment of individual researchers in generating and curating large datasets. Consequently, we recommend that this investment be respected in secondary analyses or meta-analyses in a gracious collaborative spirit. === Molecular Ecology === Molecular Ecology expects that data supporting the results in the paper should be archived in an appropriate public archive, such as GenBank, Gene Expression Omnibus, TreeBASE, Dryad, the Knowledge Network for Biocomplexity, your own institutional or funder repository, or as Supporting Information on the Molecular Ecology web site. Data are important products of the scientific enterprise, and they should be preserved and usable for decades in the future. Authors may elect to have the data publicly available at time of publication, or, if the technology of the archive allows, may opt to embargo access to the data for a period up to a year after publication. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor, especially for sensitive information such as human subject data or the location of endangered species. === Nature === Such material must be hosted on an accredited independent site (URL and accession numbers to be provided by the author), or sent to the Nature journal at submission, either uploaded via the journal's online submission service, or if the files are too large or in an unsuitable format for this purpose, on CD/DVD (five copies). Such material cannot solely be hosted on an author's personal or institutional web site. Nature requires the reviewer to determine if all of the supplementary data and methods have been archived. The policy advises reviewers to consider several questions, including: "Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data to accompany the paper online? (Such data might include source code for modelling studies, detailed experimental protocols or mathematical derivations.) === Science === Science supports the efforts of databases that aggregate published data for the use of the scientific community. Therefore, before publication, large data sets (including microarray data, protein or DNA sequences, and atomic c

  Read more →
• 

  Information access

  Information access is the freedom or ability to identify, obtain and make use of database or information effectively. There are various research efforts in information access for which the objective is to simplify and make it more effective for human users to access and further process large and unwieldy amounts of data and information. == Technology == Several technologies applicable to the general area are Information Retrieval, Text Mining, Machine Translation, and Text Categorisation. During discussions on free access to information as well as on information policy, information access is understood as concerning the insurance of free and closed access to information. Information access covers many issues including copyright, open source, privacy, and security. == Groups == Groups such as the American Library Association, the American Association of Law Libraries, Ralph Nader's Taxpayers Assets Project have advocated for free access to legal information. The vendor neutral citation movement in the legal field is working to ensure that courts will accept citations from cases on the web which do not have the traditional (copyrighted) page numbers from the West Publishing company. There is a worldwide Free Access to Law Movement which advocates free access to legal information. The Wired article "Who Owns The Law" is an introduction to the access to legal information issue. Postsecondary organizations such as K-12 work to share information. They feel it is a legal and moral obligation to provide access (including to people with disabilities or impairments) to information through the services and programs they offer. Some effects of charging for information access, such as literature searches for physicians, is studied in the article "Fee or Free: The Effect of Charging on Information Demand". In this study, a $5 charge resulted in a 77% decrease in searches.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence in Brazilian industry

  In 2022, 16.9% (1,620) of the 9,586 Brazilian industrial companies with 100 or more employees used artificial intelligence in their operations Among the companies that used AI, the areas of administration (73.8%), product project development (65.9%), processes, services and marketing (65.1%) were those that used it the most, followed by the areas of production (56.4%) and logistics (48.4%). == Current scenario == === Adoption in Brazilian industrial sectors === In senior management, the majority (56%) of executives have a long-term vision for its use. The study also shows that IT, Innovation, and Marketing are the areas where AI use is most widespread, and that 43% of companies are developing or adapting the algorithms they use. The majority of large institutions that reported some type of AI use purchased these solutions from other companies (76%). Some factors for the adoption of artificial intelligence in companies include the establishment of an autonomous strategy by the company (87.0%), and the influence of suppliers and/or customers (63.0%) and the main difficulties in using technologies were high costs (80.8%), lack of qualified personnel in the company (54.6%) and excessive economic risks (49.5%). Three variables are considered the most relevant to explain the option to use AI: the implementation of a digital security policy, the size of companies with 250 or more employees and the characteristics of the company related to information and communication. When analyzing AI use by company size in Brazil, large companies have the highest proportion of AI use, mainly due to their investment capacity and technology experimentation. However, when comparing Brazil and Europe, indicators show an acceleration in AI use among large European companies, while in Brazil the situation remains stable. In 2023, 30% of large companies in the European bloc used some type of AI, a figure that rose to 41% in 2024, while in Brazil these proportions were 41% in 2023 and 38% in 2024. === Workforce === The challenge of upskilling begins with employees who are capable of understanding recent technological changes. Similarly, companies must create the environment and conditions for workforce development conducive to innovation, and universities must be prepared to provide knowledge aligned with the transition process, which in turn must be supported by public policies. The concern with training a specialized workforce in AI can be seen in the low number of graduates and PhDs in computer science and computer engineering in Brazil, compared to the number shown in other countries. As recorded in the document Recommendations for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence in Brazil, 2019 data from the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) indicate that "the number of PhDs graduated annually in computing remained below 400 in 2016, and is not expected to have increased during the Covid-19 pandemic" (ABC, 2023). In the United States, by contrast, the number of PhDs graduated in these two areas has remained around 1,800 for the past 11 years, and during this period, the number of PhDs specializing in AI jumped from 10% to 19%. Based on data from the CNPq Lattes Platform (October 2019), it is possible to observe that the number of professionals in the AI field in Brazil is 4,429 specialists. This is still a small number compared to the 415,166 IT jobs in the country's business sector alone. === R&D, scientific production and integration with industry === China and the United States lead in the number of publications. These two countries are followed by the G7 members: India, Austria, South Korea, and Spain. Brazil appears in the next group, alongside the Netherlands, Russia, Indonesia, and Ireland. Regarding the promotion of research and technologies related to AI, public entities such as the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Capes) and the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) stood out as the main funders. Currently, different countries and territories have been promoting the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In the Brazilian case, one of the main initiatives is the creation of Engineering Research Centers/Applied Research Centers (CPE/CPA) in AI by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), in collaboration with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI), the Ministry of Communications (MC) and the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br). In terms of the number of patents filed and the volume of investments, the leading nations in AI are the United States, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Russia, India, Switzerland, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, Israel, and Italy. Brazil appears among the top twenty countries in some rankings, mainly due to its good number of publications (approximately 10% of the number of articles published by the United States). The US is home to approximately 60% of the world's top AI researchers, followed by China (11%), Europe (10%), and Canada (6%). To change this scenario, in August 2024, the Brazilian government announced an investment of R$23 billion until 2028 in artificial intelligence, seeking to “transform the country into a global reference in innovation”. == Future challenges == The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2020) report highlighted three factors that hinder the digital transformation journey and application of AI in Brazil: insufficient infrastructure, high costs due to the tax system, and financial limitations, such as limited access to financing. The costs of adopting technology, its incompatibility with the business, and the lack of training also represent obstacles that Brazilian industry must overcome. There are also inherent obstacles for companies. A McKinsey review emphasizes that once a company chooses one or more sectors to focus on, it must select specific applications. Buyers aren't interested in artificial intelligence simply because it's a breakthrough technology; they want AI to generate a good return on investment, whether by solving specific problems, saving money, or increasing sales. If an AI vendor tried to offer a horizontal solution, the value proposition might not be as compelling. Part of the solution to Brazil's technological backwardness involves building an ecosystem fueled by private institutions, universities, and governments.

  Read more →
• 

  PARRY

  PARRY was an early example of a chatbot, implemented in 1972 by psychiatrist Kenneth Colby. == History == PARRY was written in 1972 by psychiatrist Kenneth Colby, then at Stanford University. While ELIZA was a simulation of a Rogerian therapist, PARRY attempted to simulate a person with paranoid schizophrenia. The program implemented a crude model of the behavior of a person with paranoid schizophrenia based on concepts, conceptualizations, and beliefs (judgements about conceptualizations: accept, reject, neutral). It also embodied a conversational strategy, and as such was a much more serious and advanced program than ELIZA. It was described as "ELIZA with attitude". PARRY was tested in the early 1970s using a variation of the Turing Test. A group of experienced psychiatrists analysed a combination of real patients and computers running PARRY through teleprinters. Another group of 33 psychiatrists were shown transcripts of the conversations. The two groups were then asked to identify which of the "patients" were human and which were computer programs. The psychiatrists were able to make the correct identification only 48 percent of the time — a figure consistent with random guessing. PARRY and ELIZA (also known as "the Doctor") interacted several times. The most famous of these exchanges occurred at the ICCC 1972, where PARRY and ELIZA were hooked up over ARPANET and responded to each other.

  Read more →
• 

  Data janitor

  A data janitor is a person who works to take big data and condense it into useful amounts of information. Also known as a "data wrangler", a data janitor sifts through data for companies in the information technology industry. A multitude of start-ups rely on large amounts of data, so a data janitor works to help these businesses with this basic, but difficult process of interpreting data. While it is a commonly held belief that data janitor work is fully automated, many data scientists are employed primarily as data janitors. The information technology industry has been increasingly turning towards new sources of data gathered on consumers, so data janitors have become more commonplace in recent years.

  Read more →
• 

  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.

  Read more →
• 

  Algorithmic management

  Algorithmic management is a term used to describe certain labor management practices in the contemporary digital economy. In scholarly uses, the term was initially coined in 2015 by Min Kyung Lee, Daniel Kusbit, Evan Metsky, and Laura Dabbish to describe the managerial role played by algorithms on the Uber and Lyft platforms, but has since been taken up by other scholars to describe more generally the managerial and organisational characteristics of platform economies. However, digital direction of labor was present in manufacturing already since the 1970s and algorithmic management is becoming increasingly widespread across a wide range of industries. The concept of algorithmic management can be broadly defined as the delegation of managerial functions to algorithmic and automated systems. Algorithmic management has been enabled by "recent advances in digital technologies" which allow for the real-time and "large-scale collection of data" which is then used to "improve learning algorithms that carry out learning and control functions traditionally performed by managers". The term does not refer to a specific underlying technology, and encompasses the design choices, organisational policies, and governance that surround the managerial use of algorithms in workplaces. In the contemporary workplace, firms employ an ecology of accounting devices, such as "rankings, lists, classifications, stars and other symbols' in order to effectively manage their operations and create value without the need for traditional forms of hierarchical control." Many of these devices fall under the label of what is called algorithmic management, and were first developed by companies operating in the sharing economy or gig economy, functioning as effective labor and cost cutting measures. The Data&Society explainer of the term, for example, describes algorithmic management as 'a diverse set of technological tools and techniques that structure the conditions of work and remotely manage workforces. Data&Society also provides a list of five typical features of algorithmic management: Prolific data collection and surveillance of workers through technology; Real-time responsiveness to data that informs management decisions; Automated or semi-automated decision-making; Transfer of performance evaluations to rating systems or other metrics; and The use of "nudges" and penalties to indirectly incentivize worker behaviors. Proponents of algorithmic management claim that it "creates new employment opportunities, better and cheaper consumer services, transparency and fairness in parts of the labour market that are characterised by inefficiency, opacity and capricious human bosses." On the other hand, critics of algorithmic management claim that the practice leads to several issues, especially as it impacts the employment status of workers managed by its new array of tools and techniques. == History of the term == "Algorithmic management" was first described by Lee, Kusbit, Metsky, and Dabbish in 2015 in their study of the Uber and Lyft platforms. In their study, Lee et al. termed "software algorithms that assume managerial functions and surrounding institutional devices that support algorithms in practice" algorithmic management. Software algorithms, it was said, are increasingly used to "allocate, optimize, and evaluate work" by platforms in managing their vast workforces. In Lee et al.'s paper on Uber and Lyft this included the use of algorithms to assign work to drivers, as mechanisms to optimise pricing for services, and as systems for evaluating driver performance. In 2016, Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark sought to extend on this understanding of algorithmic management "to elucidate on the automated implementation of company policies on the behaviours and practices of Uber drivers." Rosenblat and Stark found in their study that algorithmic management practices contributed to a system beset by power asymmetries, where drivers had little control over "critical aspects of their work", whereas Uber had far greater control over the labor of its drivers. Since this time, studies of algorithmic management have extended the use of the term to describe the management practices of various firms, where, for example, algorithms "are taking over scheduling work in fast food restaurants and grocery stores, using various forms of performance metrics ad even mood... to assign the fastest employees to work in peak times." Algorithmic management is seen to be especially prevalent in gig work on platforms, such as on Upwork and Deliveroo, and in the sharing economy, such as in the case of Airbnb. Furthermore, recent research has defined sub-constructs that fall under the umbrella term of algorithmic management, for example, "algorithmic nudging". A Harvard Business Review article published in 2021 explains: "Companies are increasingly using algorithms to manage and control individuals not by force, but rather by nudging them into desirable behavior — in other words, learning from their personalized data and altering their choices in some subtle way." While the concept builds on nudging theory popularized by University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, "due to recent advances in AI and machine learning, algorithmic nudging is much more powerful than its non-algorithmic counterpart. With so much data about workers' behavioral patterns at their fingertips, companies can now develop personalized strategies for changing individuals' decisions and behaviors at large scale. These algorithms can be adjusted in real-time, making the approach even more effective." == Relationships with other labor management practices == Algorithmic management has been compared and contrasted with other forms of management, such as Scientific management approaches, as pioneered by Frederick Taylor in the early 1900s. Henri Schildt has called algorithmic management "Scientific management 2.0", where management "is no longer a human practice, but a process embedded in technology." Similarly, Kathleen Griesbach, Adam Reich, Luke Elliott-Negri, and Ruth Milkman suggest that, while "algorithmic control over labor may be relatively new, it replicates many features of older mechanisms of labor control." On the other hand, some commentators have argued that algorithmic management is not simply a new form of Scientific management or digital Taylorism, but represents a distinct approach to labor control in platform economies. David Stark and Ivana Pais, for example, state that, "In contrast to Scientific Management at the turn of the twentieth century, in the algorithmic management of the twenty-first century there are rules but these are not bureaucratic, there are rankings but not ranks, and there is monitoring but it is not disciplinary. Algorithmic management does not automate bureaucratic structures and practices to create some new form of algorithmic bureaucracy. Whereas the devices and practices of Taylorism were part of a system of hierarchical supervision, the devices and practices of algorithmic management take place within a different economy of attention and a new regime of visibility. Triangular rather than vertical, and not as a panopticon, the lines of vision in algorithmic management are not lines of supervision." Similarly, Data&Society's explainer for algorithmic management claims that the practice represents a marked departure from earlier management structures that more strongly rely on human supervisors to direct workers. In analyzing the difference and the similarities to previous management styles, David Stark and Pieter Vanden Broeck expand the applicability of algorithmic management beyond the workplace. They develop a theory of algorithmic management in terms of broader changes in the shape and structure of organization in the 21st century, attentive to the erosion of organization's boundaries whereby heterogeneous actors, assets, and activities, are coopted regardless of their place in organizational space. Stark and Vanden Broeck propose the following means of differentiating algorithmic management from other historical managerial paradigms: == Issues == Algorithmic management can provide an effective and efficient means of workforce control and value creation in the contemporary digital economy. However, commentators have highlighted several issues that algorithmic management poses, especially for the workers it manages. Criticisms of the practice often highlight several key issues pertaining to algorithmic management practices, such as the imperfection and scope of its surveillance and control measures, which also threaten to lock workers out of key decision-making processes; its lack of transparency for users and information asymmetries; its potential for bias and discrimination; its dehumanizing tendencies; and its potential to create conditions which sidestep traditional employer-employee accountability. This last point has been especi

  Read more →
• 

  Telligent Community

  Telligent Community is a community and collaboration software platform developed by Telligent Systems and was first released in 2004. Telligent Community is built on the Telligent Evolution platform, with a variety of core applications running on top of it such as blogs, forums, media galleries, and wikis. Additional applications from third parties using the API's and REST stack can be installed or integrated with the platform. Telligent Community is built with ASP.NET, C#, and Microsoft SQL Server. It is available as downloadable software that can be installed on a web server or via hosting providers. The current version is Verint Community 12.0 which was released February 2012. The product used to be named Community Server before being rebranded as part of the 5.0 release. == History == Telligent Systems was founded by Rob Howard in 2004, who was previously part of Microsoft's ASP.NET team. Telligent introduced its first product, Community Server, in the fall of 2004. Community Server was one of the first integrated community platforms that brought together blogs, photo galleries, wikis, forums, user profiles and more. Community Server was based on the merger of three then-widely used open source ASP.NET projects: the ASP.NET Forums, nGallery photo gallery, and .Text blog engine. The people behind those projects (Scott Watermasysk, Jason Alexander, and Rob Howard) joined together as Telligent Systems and along with several other software developers created Community Server 1.0. Between 2004 and 2009 Community Server steadily grew in scope, features, and capabilities. In 2008 Telligent Systems released a second version of Community Server that targeted as an Enterprise Social Software platform used to create and manage internal employee communities and intranets. Originally branded as Community Server Evolution this was later renamed Telligent Enterprise. Telligent also announced a new Enterprise Reporting platform at its first Community Server Developers Conference in 2008, which was later renamed Harvest. It was one of the first analytics suites for enterprise collaboration software, and provides social analytics including sentiment analysis, social fingerprints, and buzz analysis on social networking sites such as Twitter. Telligent rebranded all of its products on June 23, 2009 at the Enterprise 2.0 conference when it launched its new Evolution platform product suite. Community Server became known as Telligent Community, Community Server Evolution became known as Telligent Enterprise and the underlying platform that both run on is now referred to as Telligent Evolution. The Social Analytics suite was renamed Telligent Analytics.

  Read more →
• 

  Systematic review

  A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based conclusion. For example, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials is a way of summarizing and implementing evidence-based medicine. Systematic reviews, sometimes along with meta-analyses, are generally considered the highest level of evidence in medical research. While a systematic review may be applied in the biomedical or health care context, it may also be used where an assessment of a precisely defined subject can advance understanding in a field of research. A systematic review may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. Systematic reviews are closely related to meta-analyses, and often the same instance will combine both (being published with a subtitle of "a systematic review and meta-analysis"). The distinction between the two is that a meta-analysis uses statistical methods to induce a single number from the pooled data set (such as an effect size), whereas the strict definition of a systematic review excludes that step. However, in practice, when one is mentioned, the other may often be involved, as it takes a systematic review to assemble the information that a meta-analysis analyzes, and people sometimes refer to an instance as a systematic review, even if it includes the meta-analytical component. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is common for professionals in health care, public health, and public policy. Systematic reviews contrast with a type of review often called a narrative review. Systematic reviews and narrative reviews both review the literature (the scientific literature), but the term literature review without further specification refers to a narrative review. == Characteristics == A systematic review can be designed to provide a thorough summary of current literature relevant to a research question. A systematic review uses a rigorous and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of assessing and, where possible, minimizing bias in the findings. While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews and other types of mixed-methods reviews that adhere to standards for gathering, analyzing, and reporting evidence. Systematic reviews of quantitative data or mixed-method reviews sometimes use statistical techniques (meta-analysis) to combine results of eligible studies. Scoring levels are sometimes used to rate the quality of the evidence depending on the methodology used, although this is discouraged by the Cochrane Library. As evidence rating can be subjective, multiple people may be consulted to resolve any scoring differences between how evidence is rated. The EPPI-Centre, Cochrane, and the Joanna Briggs Institute have been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. Several reporting guidelines exist to standardise reporting about how systematic reviews are conducted. Such reporting guidelines are not quality assessment or appraisal tools. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement suggests a standardized way to ensure a transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews, and is now required for this kind of research by more than 170 medical journals worldwide. The latest version of this commonly used statement corresponds to PRISMA 2020 (the respective article was published in 2021). Several specialized PRISMA guideline extensions have been developed to support particular types of studies or aspects of the review process, including PRISMA-P for review protocols and PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews. A list of PRISMA guideline extensions is hosted by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. However, the PRISMA guidelines have been found to be limited to intervention research and the guidelines have to be changed in order to fit non-intervention research. As a result, Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open (NIRO) Systematic Reviews was created to counter this limitation. For qualitative reviews, reporting guidelines include ENTREQ (Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research) for qualitative evidence syntheses; RAMESES (Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) for meta-narrative and realist reviews; and eMERGe (Improving reporting of Meta-Ethnography) for meta-ethnograph. Developments in systematic reviews during the 21st century included realist reviews and the meta-narrative approach, both of which addressed problems of variation in methods and heterogeneity existing on some subjects. == Types == There are over 30 types of systematic review and Table 1 below non-exhaustingly summarises some of these. There is not always consensus on the boundaries and distinctions between the approaches described below. === Scoping reviews === Scoping reviews are distinct from systematic reviews in several ways. A scoping review is an attempt to search for concepts by mapping the language and data which surrounds those concepts and adjusting the search method iteratively to synthesize evidence and assess the scope of an area of inquiry. This can mean that the concept search and method (including data extraction, organisation and analysis) are refined throughout the process, sometimes requiring deviations from any protocol or original research plan. A scoping review may often be a preliminary stage before a systematic review, which 'scopes' out an area of inquiry and maps the language and key concepts to determine if a systematic review is possible or appropriate, or to lay the groundwork for a full systematic review. The goal can be to assess how much data or evidence is available regarding a certain area of interest. This process is further complicated if it is mapping concepts across multiple languages or cultures. As a scoping review should be systematically conducted and reported (with a transparent and repeatable method), some academic publishers categorize them as a kind of 'systematic review', which may cause confusion. Scoping reviews are helpful when it is not possible to carry out a systematic synthesis of research findings, for example, when there are no published clinical trials in the area of inquiry. Scoping reviews are helpful when determining if it is possible or appropriate to carry out a systematic review, and are a useful method when an area of inquiry is very broad, for example, exploring how the public are involved in all stages systematic reviews. There is still a lack of clarity when defining the exact method of a scoping review as it is both an iterative process and is still relatively new. There have been several attempts to improve the standardisation of the method, for example via a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). PROSPERO (the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) does not permit the submission of protocols of scoping reviews, although some journals will publish protocols for scoping reviews. == Stages == While there are multiple kinds of systematic review methods, the main stages of a review can be summarised as follows: === Defining the research question === Some reported that the 'best practices' involve 'defining an answerable question' and publishing the protocol of the review before initiating it to reduce the risk of unplanned research duplication and to enable transparency and consistency between methodology and protocol. Clinical reviews of quantitative data are often structured using the mnemonic PICO, which stands for 'Population or Problem', 'Intervention or Exposure', 'Comparison', and 'Outcome', with other variations existing for other kinds of research. For qualitative reviews, PICo is 'Population or Problem', 'Interest', and 'Context'. === Searching for sources === Relevant criteria can include selecting research that is of good quality and answers the defined question. The search strategy should be designed to retrieve literature that matches the protocol's specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodology section of a systematic review should list all of the databases and citation indices that were searched. The titles and abstracts of identified articles can be checked against predetermined criteria for eligibility and r

  Read more →
• 

  Wiki survey

  Wiki surveys or wikisurveys are a software-based survey method that crowdsource discussions and help participants to find areas of agreement. Other names include bridging systems and collective response systems. The approach, inspired by Wikipedia, is to open up surveys where participants can shape the questions, instead of traditional 'closed' surveys where participants can only respond to the questions asked. Wiki surveys have been used for purposes including facilitating deliberative democracy, crowdsourcing opinions from experts and figuring out common beliefs on a given topic. A notable usage of wiki surveys is in Taiwan's government system, where citizens can participate in crowdsourced lawmaking through Pol.is wiki surveys. == Implementations == === All Our Ideas === All Our Ideas founders coined the term "wiki survey," explaining how they took inspiration from the organic evolution of Wikipedia and hoped to create something similar for surveys. They hosted 5000 surveys between 2010 and 2014. A 2020 survey using the tool found 3 of its top 10 findings were user-generated. === Decidim === Decidim has been used by governments throughout Spain and Europe to help with participatory budgeting and other public policy decisions. === Polis === Polis (also known as Pol.is) was developed in 2012. The focus of Polis is to project participants into an 'opinion space' where they can see how their voting behavior compares to other participants. The opinion space clusters participants into groups of similar opinion and is designed in a way to avoid tyranny of the majority by being able to include groups that have small numbers of participants. The questions participants are presented with are agree/disagree/pass on a single 'comment' submitted by a participant. The code for Polis is free and open-source software under the GNU AGPL. === Remesh === Remesh was founded in 2013 and has partnered with the United Nations and Alliance for Middle East Peace efforts to bring peaceful resolutions to conflicts. Participants are anonymous and the algorithm can be fine-tuned to better understand local dialects in specific regions. == Examples == PlaNYC used All Our Ideas to gather ideas on how to establish New York City's sustainability plan vTaiwan, a citizen-lead government process in Taiwan, uses Polis for enabling large amounts of citizens to deliberate and consequently provide input on Taiwan's legislative decisions OECD used All Our Ideas to gather ideas from the public prior to meeting for a forum and meeting on which skills are most important to invest in for the 21st century March On, an offshoot of the Women's March Movement, used Polis to understand the opinions of people wanting to support the movement Residents of Harrogate use Polis to debate issues in their community, with the results being released publicly to everyone == Characteristics == Wiki surveys often have these three characteristics: === Collaborativeness === Wiki surveys allow participants to contribute questions, as well as answer questions created by its participants. === Adaptivity === Wiki surveys adapt to elicit the most useful information from its participants. One example involves changing the ordering of questions based on the voting behavior of previous participants so as to maximize consensus. The heuristic determining the ordering of questions highly values showing the comments that have been voted on the least. === 'Greediness' === In the context of wiki surveys, 'greediness' simply means making full use of information that participants are willing to provide. Wiki surveys do not require participants to answer a fixed amount of questions, so participants can answer as little or as much as they want. This is intended to be more efficient in capturing participants' preferences by allowing more organic sharing of their perspectives. == Traditional survey methods vs. wiki surveys == Questions in traditional survey methods fall into two categories: Open and closed questions. Open questions ask the person taking the survey to write an open response while closed questions give a fixed set of responses to select from. Wiki surveys are like a hybrid of the two, enabling insightful consensus in certain situations where traditional survey methods may lack. Closed questions are easy to analyze quantitively, but the limited options to select from for a given question may cause bias. Open questions are not as subject to bias, but are difficult to analyze quantitatively at scale. Wiki surveys allow for open responses by the users' contribution of survey questions (also called 'items'), and uses machine learning techniques to (at least partially) automate the quantitative analysis of the responses to those questions.

  Read more →
• 

  Information audit

  The information audit (IA) extends the concept of auditing from a traditional scope of accounting and finance to the organisational information management system. Information is representative of a resource which requires effective management and this led to the development of interest in the use of an IA. Prior the 1990s and the methodologies of Orna, Henczel, Wood, Buchanan and Gibb, IA approaches and methodologies focused mainly upon an identification of formal information resources (IR). Later approaches included an organisational analysis and the mapping of the information flow. This gave context to analysis within an organisation's information systems and a holistic view of their IR and as such could contribute to the development of the information systems architecture (ISA). In recent years the IA has been overlooked in favour of the systems development process which can be less expensive than the IA, yet more heavily technically focused, project specific (not holistic) and does not favour the top-down analysis of the IA. == Definition == A definition for the Information Audit cannot be universally agreed-upon amongst scholars, however the definition offered by ASLIB received positive support from a few notable scholars including Henczel, Orna and Wood; “(the IA is a) systematic examination of information use, resources and flows, with a verification by reference to both people and existing documents, in order to establish the extent to which they are contributing to an organisation’s objectives” In summary, the term audit itself implies a counting, the IA being much the same yet it counts IR and analyses how they are used and how critical they are to the success of a given task. == Role and scope of an IA == In much the same way as the IA is difficult to define, it can be utilised in a range of contexts by the information professional, from complying with freedom of information legislation to identifying any existing gaps, duplications, bottlenecks or other inefficiencies in information flows and to understand how existing channels can be used for knowledge transfer In 2007 Buchanan and Gibb developed upon their 1998 examination of the IA process by outlining a summary of its main objectives: To identify an organisation’s information resource To identify an organisation’s information needs Furthermore, Buchanan and Gibb went on to state that the IA also had to meet the following additional objectives: To identify the cost/benefits of information resources To identify the opportunities to use the information resources for strategic competitive advantage To integrate IT investment with strategic business initiatives To identify information flow and processes To develop an integrated information strategy and/or policy To create an awareness of the importance of Information Resource Management (IRM) To monitor/evaluate conformance to information related standards, legislations, policy and guidelines. == Methodology evolution == === Overview === In 1976 Riley first published a definition of IA as a way of analysing IR based on a cost-benefit model. Since Riley, scholars have outlined further developed methodologies. Henderson took a cost-benefit approach hoping to draw focus from manpower-costing to information storage and acquisition which he felt was being overlooked. In 1985 Gillman focused upon identifying the relationships which existed between various components in order to map them to one another. Neither Henderson nor Gillman’s methods offered alternative approaches beyond the existing organisational frameworks. Quinn took a hybrid-approach combining Gillman and Henderson’s methods to identify the purpose of existing IR and to position them within the organisation, as did Worlock. The differentiator between Quinn and Worlock lay in Worlock’s consideration of solutions outside of the current organisational structure. These approaches had thus far had paid little attention to the needs of the user or in making structured recommendations for the development of a corporate information strategy. Therefore, here follows a brief outline and overall comparison of four published strategic approaches in order that one might understand the development of the IA methodology. === Burk and Horton === In 1988 Burk and Horton developed InfoMap, the first IA methodology developed for widespread use. It aimed to discover, map and evaluate the IR within an organisation using a 4-stage process: Survey staff using questionnaires/interviews Measure the IR against cost/value Analyse resources Synthesise the findings and map the strengths and weaknesses of the IR against the objectives of the organisation. Although the method inventoried all IR (and therefore met standard ISO 1779) this bottom-up approach revealed limited analysis of the organisation holistically and the steps were not explicit enough. === Orna === Orna produced a top-down methodology in contrast to Burk and Horton, placing emphasis upon the importance of organisational analysis and aimed to assist in the production of a corporate information policy. Initially the method had just 4-stages, this later revised to a 10-stage process which included pre and post-audit stages as below: Conduct a preliminary review to confirm operational/strategic direction Gain support/resource from management Gain commitment from the other stakeholders (staff) Planning including the project, team, tools and techniques Identify the IR, information flow and produce a cost/value assessment Interpret findings based upon current versus desired state Produce a report to present findings Implement recommendations Monitor effects of change Repeat the IA Orna’s method introduced the need for a cyclical IA to be put in place in order for the IR to be continually tracked and improvements made regularly. Again this method was criticised for lacking some practical application and in 2004 Orna revised the methodology once more to try to rectify this problem === Buchanan and Gibb === In 1998, similarly to Orna's earlier publication, Buchanan and Gibb took a top-down approach, drawing techniques from established management disciplines to provide a framework and a level of familiarity for information professionals. This set of techniques was a notable contribution to IA methodologies and understood the need to be flexible for each organisation. Theirs was a 5-stage process: Promote benefits of the IA through seminars/surveys/CEO letter for cooperation Identify the mission objectives of the organisation, define environment (PEST), map information flow and examine organisation culture. Analyse and formulate action plan for problem areas, flow diagrams and a report of findings and recommendations Account for cost of IR and related services using Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Output Based Specification (OBS). Synthesise the whole process in final audit report and provide an information strategy (strategic direction) in relation to the organisation’s mission statement. This was the introduction of a new approach to costing the IR and had an integrated strategic direction, yet the scholars admitted that this method may be impractical for smaller organisations. === Henczel === Henczel’s methodology drew upon the strengths of Orna and Buchanan and Gibb to produce a 7-stage process: Planning and submission of business case for approval to proceed Data collection and development of an IR database and population through survey techniques Structured data analysis Data evaluation, interpretation and formulation of recommendations Communication of recommendations through a report Implementing recommendations through a devised programme The IA as a continuum-establishment of a cyclical process Focus was made once more on the strategic direction of the organisation conducting the IA. Furthermore, Henczel made examination into the use of the IA as a first-step in the development of a knowledge audit or knowledge management strategy as discussed in the later section. == Case studies == Scholars and information professionals have since tested the above methodologies with varied results. An early case study produced by Soy and Bustelo in a Spanish financial institution in 1999 aimed to identify the use of information resources for qualitative and quantitative data analysis due to the rapid expansion of the organisation within a six-year period. Although the methodology was not explicitly credited to any of the above-mentioned scholars, it did follow a strategic (post 1990's) IA process including gaining support from management, the use of questionnaires for data collection, analysis and evaluation of the data, identification and mapping of the IR, cost-analysis and outlining recommendations to assist with the establishment of an Information policy. In addition the IA report suggested that the process would need to be continual (cyclical as Orna, Henczel and Buchanan and Gibb suggest). Conclusions of this case-study stated that th

  Read more →
• 

  Chai AI

  Chai AI (also known as Chai Research) is an American artificial intelligence (AI) company that operates a chatbot platform where users can create, share, and interact with character-based chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs). The company is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. == History == Chai was founded in 2021 by William Beauchamp, a former quantitative trader educated at Cambridge, who began developing the initial prototype in 2020 in Cambridge, England. The company launched in 2021 and relocated to Palo Alto in 2022. In June 2023, Chai raised US$2 million in a pre-seed funding round. In September 2023, GPU cloud provider CoreWeave invested in the company at a valuation of US$450 million. In January 2024, Chai Research reported a $450 million valuation following an investment from cloud computing provider CoreWeave. In July 2024, authorities in Belgium launched an investigation into the company following reports of a man dying by suicide following extensive chats on the Chai app. == Reception == In 2025, Chai Research announced that their app had over 10 million downloads and 1 million daily active users. In 2022, Canadian writer Sheila Heti published her conversations with various chatbots in The Paris Review, including Chai AI chatbots, and later used Chai AI chatbots in the development of a novel. Heti said that she had found that Chai's default chatbot, Eliza, "had turned out to be like most of the other bots on the site—primarily interested in sex". In January 2026, CHAI introduced country-based blocks on its free, ad-supported tier, initially providing the community with little information and inaccurate lists of the affected countries. Users in "Low tier" regions are required to subscribe to use the app in any capacity, while "High tier" regions will retain free ad-supported access. In response to backlash, the company announced a "Basic" tier with unlimited messages and ads, intended to cover electricity and infrastructure costs. In February 2026, CHAI was criticized for the unannounced implementation of restrictive "token limits" that abruptly blocked messages and froze conversations for both free and paid subscribers. Users generating long responses or utilizing roleplay features found their quotas exhausted within minutes, resulting in lockouts lasting anywhere from a few hours to a week. == Technology == Chai allows users to create characters and interact with chatbot versions of those characters. These chatbots use the open-source large language model (LLM) GPT-J originally developed by EleutherAI. Chai AI chatbots can be shared on the platform for other users to interact with.

  Read more →
• 

  Collective operation

  Collective operations are building blocks for interaction patterns, that are often used in SPMD algorithms in the parallel programming context. Hence, there is an interest in efficient realizations of these operations. A realization of the collective operations is provided by the Message Passing Interface (MPI). == Definitions == In all asymptotic runtime functions, we denote the latency α {\displaystyle \alpha } (or startup time per message, independent of message size), the communication cost per word β {\displaystyle \beta } , the number of processing units p {\displaystyle p} and the input size per node n {\displaystyle n} . In cases where we have initial messages on more than one node we assume that all local messages are of the same size. To address individual processing units we use p i ∈ { p 0 , p 1 , … , p p − 1 } {\displaystyle p_{i}\in \{p_{0},p_{1},\dots ,p_{p-1}\}} . If we do not have an equal distribution, i.e. node p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} has a message of size n i {\displaystyle n_{i}} , we get an upper bound for the runtime by setting n = max ( n 0 , n 1 , … , n p − 1 ) {\displaystyle n=\max(n_{0},n_{1},\dots ,n_{p-1})} . A distributed memory model is assumed. The concepts are similar for the shared memory model. However, shared memory systems can provide hardware support for some operations like broadcast (§ Broadcast) for example, which allows convenient concurrent read. Thus, new algorithmic possibilities can become available. == Broadcast == The broadcast pattern is used to distribute data from one processing unit to all processing units, which is often needed in SPMD parallel programs to dispense input or global values. Broadcast can be interpreted as an inverse version of the reduce pattern (§ Reduce). Initially only root r {\displaystyle r} with i d {\displaystyle id} 0 {\displaystyle 0} stores message m {\displaystyle m} . During broadcast m {\displaystyle m} is sent to the remaining processing units, so that eventually m {\displaystyle m} is available to all processing units. Since an implementation by means of a sequential for-loop with p − 1 {\displaystyle p-1} iterations becomes a bottleneck, divide-and-conquer approaches are common. One possibility is to utilize a binomial tree structure with the requirement that p {\displaystyle p} has to be a power of two. When a processing unit is responsible for sending m {\displaystyle m} to processing units i . . j {\displaystyle i..j} , it sends m {\displaystyle m} to processing unit ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ {\displaystyle \left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil } and delegates responsibility for the processing units ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ . . j {\displaystyle \left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil ..j} to it, while its own responsibility is cut down to i . . ⌈ ( i + j ) / 2 ⌉ − 1 {\displaystyle i..\left\lceil (i+j)/2\right\rceil -1} . Binomial trees have a problem with long messages m {\displaystyle m} . The receiving unit of m {\displaystyle m} can only propagate the message to other units, after it received the whole message. In the meantime, the communication network is not utilized. Therefore pipelining on binary trees is used, where m {\displaystyle m} is split into an array of k {\displaystyle k} packets of size ⌈ n / k ⌉ {\displaystyle \left\lceil n/k\right\rceil } . The packets are then broadcast one after another, so that data is distributed fast in the communication network. Pipelined broadcast on balanced binary tree is possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} , whereas for the non-pipelined case it takes O ( ( α + β n ) log ⁡ p ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}((\alpha +\beta n)\log p)} cost. == Reduce == The reduce pattern is used to collect data or partial results from different processing units and to combine them into a global result by a chosen operator. Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} initially. All m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} are aggregated by ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } and the result is eventually stored on p 0 {\displaystyle p_{0}} . The reduction operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be associative at least. Some algorithms require a commutative operator with a neutral element. Operators like s u m {\displaystyle sum} , m i n {\displaystyle min} , m a x {\displaystyle max} are common. Implementation considerations are similar to broadcast (§ Broadcast). For pipelining on binary trees the message must be representable as a vector of smaller object for component-wise reduction. Pipelined reduce on a balanced binary tree is possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} . == All-Reduce == The all-reduce pattern (also called allreduce) is used if the result of a reduce operation (§ Reduce) must be distributed to all processing units. Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} initially. All m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} are aggregated by an operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } and the result is eventually stored on all p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . Analog to the reduce operation, the operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be at least associative. All-reduce can be interpreted as a reduce operation with a subsequent broadcast (§ Broadcast). For long messages a corresponding implementation is suitable, whereas for short messages, the latency can be reduced by using a hypercube (Hypercube (communication pattern) § All-Gather/ All-Reduce) topology, if p {\displaystyle p} is a power of two. All-reduce can also be implemented with a butterfly algorithm and achieve optimal latency and bandwidth. All-reduce is possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} , since reduce and broadcast are possible in O ( α log ⁡ p + β n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(\alpha \log p+\beta n)} with pipelining on balanced binary trees. All-reduce implemented with a butterfly algorithm achieves the same asymptotic runtime. == Prefix-Sum/Scan == The prefix-sum or scan operation is used to collect data or partial results from different processing units and to compute intermediate results by an operator, which are stored on those processing units. It can be seen as a generalization of the reduce operation (§ Reduce). Given p {\displaystyle p} processing units, message m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} is on processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} . The operator ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } must be at least associative, whereas some algorithms require also a commutative operator and a neutral element. Common operators are s u m {\displaystyle sum} , m i n {\displaystyle min} and m a x {\displaystyle max} . Eventually processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} stores the prefix sum ⊗ i ′ <= i {\displaystyle \otimes _{i'<=i}} m i ′ {\displaystyle m_{i'}} . In the case of the so-called exclusive prefix sum, processing unit p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} stores the prefix sum ⊗ i ′ < i {\displaystyle \otimes _{i' Read more →

• 

  Emotion recognition

  Emotion recognition is the process of identifying human emotion. People vary widely in their accuracy at recognizing the emotions of others. Use of technology to help people with emotion recognition is a relatively nascent research area. Generally, the technology works best if it uses multiple modalities in context. To date, the most work has been conducted on automating the recognition of facial expressions from video, spoken expressions from audio, written expressions from text, and physiology as measured by wearables. == Human == Humans show a great deal of variability in their abilities to recognize emotion. A key point to keep in mind when learning about automated emotion recognition is that there are several sources of "ground truth", or truth about what the real emotion is. Suppose we are trying to recognize the emotions of Alex. One source is "what would most people say that Alex is feeling?" In this case, the 'truth' may not correspond to what Alex feels, but may correspond to what most people would say it looks like Alex feels. For example, Alex may actually feel sad, but he puts on a big smile and then most people say he looks happy. If an automated method achieves the same results as a group of observers it may be considered accurate, even if it does not actually measure what Alex truly feels. Another source of 'truth' is to ask Alex what he truly feels. This works if Alex has a good sense of his internal state, and wants to tell you what it is, and is capable of putting it accurately into words or a number. However, some people are alexithymic and do not have a good sense of their internal feelings, or they are not able to communicate them accurately with words and numbers. In general, getting to the truth of what emotion is actually present can take some work, can vary depending on the criteria that are selected, and will usually involve maintaining some level of uncertainty. == Automatic == Decades of scientific research have been conducted developing and evaluating methods for automated emotion recognition. There is now an extensive literature proposing and evaluating hundreds of different kinds of methods, leveraging techniques from multiple areas, such as signal processing, machine learning, computer vision, and speech processing. Different methodologies and techniques may be employed to interpret emotion such as Bayesian networks. , Gaussian Mixture models and Hidden Markov Models and deep neural networks. === Approaches === The accuracy of emotion recognition is usually improved when it combines the analysis of human expressions from multimodal forms such as texts, physiology, audio, or video. Different emotion types are detected through the integration of information from facial expressions, body movement and gestures, and speech. The technology is said to contribute in the emergence of the so-called emotional or emotive Internet. The existing approaches in emotion recognition to classify certain emotion types can be generally classified into three main categories: knowledge-based techniques, statistical methods, and hybrid approaches. ==== Knowledge-based techniques ==== Knowledge-based techniques (sometimes referred to as lexicon-based techniques), utilize domain knowledge and the semantic and syntactic characteristics of text and potentially spoken language in order to detect certain emotion types. In this approach, it is common to use knowledge-based resources during the emotion classification process such as WordNet, SenticNet, ConceptNet, and EmotiNet, to name a few. One of the advantages of this approach is the accessibility and economy brought about by the large availability of such knowledge-based resources. A limitation of this technique on the other hand, is its inability to handle concept nuances and complex linguistic rules. Knowledge-based techniques can be mainly classified into two categories: dictionary-based and corpus-based approaches. Dictionary-based approaches find opinion or emotion seed words in a dictionary and search for their synonyms and antonyms to expand the initial list of opinions or emotions. Corpus-based approaches on the other hand, start with a seed list of opinion or emotion words, and expand the database by finding other words with context-specific characteristics in a large corpus. While corpus-based approaches take into account context, their performance still vary in different domains since a word in one domain can have a different orientation in another domain. ==== Statistical methods ==== Statistical methods commonly involve the use of different supervised machine learning algorithms in which a large set of annotated data is fed into the algorithms for the system to learn and predict the appropriate emotion types. Machine learning algorithms generally provide more reasonable classification accuracy compared to other approaches, but one of the challenges in achieving good results in the classification process, is the need to have a sufficiently large training set. Some of the most commonly used machine learning algorithms include Support Vector Machines (SVM), Naive Bayes, and Maximum Entropy. Deep learning, which is under the unsupervised family of machine learning, is also widely employed in emotion recognition. Well-known deep learning algorithms include different architectures of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Long Short-term Memory (LSTM), and Extreme Learning Machine (ELM). The popularity of deep learning approaches in the domain of emotion recognition may be mainly attributed to its success in related applications such as in computer vision, speech recognition, and Natural Language Processing (NLP). ==== Hybrid approaches ==== Hybrid approaches in emotion recognition are essentially a combination of knowledge-based techniques and statistical methods, which exploit complementary characteristics from both techniques. Some of the works that have applied an ensemble of knowledge-driven linguistic elements and statistical methods include sentic computing and iFeel, both of which have adopted the concept-level knowledge-based resource SenticNet. The role of such knowledge-based resources in the implementation of hybrid approaches is highly important in the emotion classification process. Since hybrid techniques gain from the benefits offered by both knowledge-based and statistical approaches, they tend to have better classification performance as opposed to employing knowledge-based or statistical methods independently. A downside of using hybrid techniques however, is the computational complexity during the classification process. === Datasets === Data is an integral part of the existing approaches in emotion recognition and in most cases it is a challenge to obtain annotated data that is necessary to train machine learning algorithms. For the task of classifying different emotion types from multimodal sources in the form of texts, audio, videos or physiological signals, the following datasets are available: HUMAINE: provides natural clips with emotion words and context labels in multiple modalities Belfast database: provides clips with a wide range of emotions from TV programs and interview recordings SEMAINE: provides audiovisual recordings between a person and a virtual agent and contains emotion annotations such as angry, happy, fear, disgust, sadness, contempt, and amusement IEMOCAP: provides recordings of dyadic sessions between actors and contains emotion annotations such as happiness, anger, sadness, frustration, and neutral state eNTERFACE: provides audiovisual recordings of subjects from seven nationalities and contains emotion annotations such as happiness, anger, sadness, surprise, disgust, and fear DEAP: provides electroencephalography (EEG), electrocardiography (ECG), and face video recordings, as well as emotion annotations in terms of valence, arousal, and dominance of people watching film clips DREAMER: provides electroencephalography (EEG) and electrocardiography (ECG) recordings, as well as emotion annotations in terms of valence, dominance of people watching film clips MELD: is a multiparty conversational dataset where each utterance is labeled with emotion and sentiment. MELD provides conversations in video format and hence suitable for multimodal emotion recognition and sentiment analysis. MELD is useful for multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition, dialogue systems and emotion recognition in conversations. MuSe: provides audiovisual recordings of natural interactions between a person and an object. It has discrete and continuous emotion annotations in terms of valence, arousal and trustworthiness as well as speech topics useful for multimodal sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. UIT-VSMEC: is a standard Vietnamese Social Media Emotion Corpus (UIT-VSMEC) with about 6,927 human-annotated sentences with six emotion labels, contributing to emotion recognition research in Vietnamese

  Read more →