AI Detector Make It Human

AI Detector Make It Human — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Document-oriented database

  A document-oriented database, or document store, is a computer program and data storage system designed for storing, retrieving, and managing document-oriented information, also known as semi-structured data. Document-oriented databases are one of the main categories of NoSQL databases, and the popularity of the term "document-oriented database" has grown alongside the adoption of NoSQL itself. XML databases are a subclass of document-oriented databases optimized for XML documents. Graph databases are similar, but add another layer, the relationship, which allows them to link documents for rapid traversal. Document-oriented databases are conceptually an extension of the key–value store, another type of NoSQL database. In key-value stores, data is treated as opaque by the database, whereas document-oriented systems exploit the internal structure of documents to extract metadata and optimize storage and queries. Although in practice the distinction can be minimal due to modern tooling, document stores are designed to provide a richer programming experience with modern programming techniques. Document databases differ significantly from traditional relational databases (RDBs). Relational databases store data in predefined tables, often requiring an object to be split across multiple tables. In contrast, document databases store all information for a given object in a single document, with each document potentially having a unique structure. This design eliminates the need for object-relational mapping when loading data into the database. == Documents == The central concept of a document-oriented database is the notion of a document. Although implementations vary in their specific definitions, document-oriented databases generally treat documents as self-contained units that encapsulate and encode data in a standardized format. Common encoding formats include XML, YAML, JSON, as well as binary representations such as BSON. Documents in a document store are equivalent to the programming concept of an object. They are not required to adhere to a fixed schema, and documents within the same collection may contain different fields or structures. Fields may be optional, and documents of the same logical type may differ in composition. For example, the following illustrates a document encoded in JSON: A second document might be encoded in XML as: The two example documents share some structural elements but also contain unique fields. The structure, text, and other data within each document are collectively referred to as the document's content and can be accessed or modified using retrieval or editing operations. Unlike relational databases, in which each record contains the same fields and unused fields are left empty, document-oriented databases do not require uniform fields across documents. This design allows new information to be added to some documents without affecting the structure of others. Document databases often support the storage of additional metadata alongside the document content. Such metadata may relate to organizational features, security, indexing, or other implementation-specific features. === CRUD operations === The core operations supported by a document-oriented database for manipulating documents are similar to those in other databases. Although terminology is not perfectly standardized, these operations are generally recognized as Create, Read, Update, and Delete (CRUD). Creation (C): Adds a new document to the database. Retrieval (R): Retrieves documents or fields based on queries. Update (U): Modifies the contents of existing documents. Deletion (D): Removes documents from the database. === Keys === Documents in a document-oriented database are addressed via a unique identifier. This identifier, often a string, URI, or path, can be used to retrieve the document from the database. Most document stores maintain an index on the key to optimize retrieval, and in some implementations the key is required when creating or inserting a new document. === Retrieval === In addition to key-based access, document-oriented databases typically provide an API or query language that enables retrieval based on document content or associated metadata. For example, a query may return all documents with a specific field matching a given value. The available query features, indexing options, and performance characteristics vary across implementations. Document stores differ from key-value stores in that they exploit the internal structure and metadata of stored documents. In many key-value stores, values are treated as opaque or "black-box" data, meaning the database system does not interpret their internal structure. By contrast, document-oriented databases can classify and interpret document content. This enables queries that distinguish between types of data––for example, retrieving all phone numbers containing "555" without also matching a postal code such as "55555." === Editing === Document databases typically provide mechanisms for updating or editing the content or metadata of a document. Updates may involve replacing the entire document or modifying individual elements or fields within the document. === Organization === Document database implementations support a variety of methods for organizing documents, including: Collections: Groups of documents. Depending on the implementation, a document may be required to belong to a single collection or may be allowed in multiple collections. Tags and non-visible metadata: Additional data stored outside the main document content. Directory hierarchies: Documents organized in a tree-like structure, often based on path or URI. These organizational structures may differ between logical and physical representations (e.g. on disk or in memory). == Relationship to other databases == === Relationship to key-value stores === A document-oriented database can be viewed as a specialized form of key-value store, which is itself a category of NoSQL database. In a basic key-value store, the stored value is typically treated as opaque by the database system. By contrast, a document-oriented database provides APIs or a query and update language that allows queries and modifications based on the internal structure of the document. For users who do not require advanced query, retrieval, or update capabilities, the distinction between document-oriented databases and key-value stores may be minimal. === Relationship to search engines === Some search engine and information retrieval systems, such as Apache Solr and Elasticsearch, provide document storage and support core document operations. As a result, they may meet certain functional definitions of a document-oriented database, although their primary design goals differ. === Relationship to relational databases === In a relational database, data is organized into predefined types represented as tables. Each table contains rows (records) with a fixed set of columns (fields), so all records in a table share the same structure. Administrators typically define indexes on selected fields to improve query performance. A central principle of relational database design is database normalization, in which data that might otherwise be repeated is stored in separate tables and linked using keys. When records in different tables are related, a foreign key is used to associate them. For example, an address book application may store a contact's name, image, phone numbers, mailing addresses, and email addresses. In a normalized relational design, separate tables might be created for contacts, phone numbers, and email addresses. The phone number table would include a foreign key referencing the associated contact. To reconstruct a complete contact record, the database retrieves related information from each table using the foreign keys and combines it into a single record. In contrast, a document-oriented database stores all data related to an object within a single document, and stored in the database as a single entry. In the address book example,the contact's name, image, and contact information may be stored together in one document. The document is retrieved using a unique key, and all related information is returned together, without needing to look up multiple tables. A key difference between the document-oriented and relational models is that the data formats are not predefined in the document case. In most cases, any sort of document can be stored in a database, and documents can change in type and form over time. For example, a new field such as COUNTRY_FLAG can be added to new documents as they are inserted without affecting existing documents. To aid retrieval, document-oriented systems generally allow the administrator to provide hints to the database for locating certain types of information. These hints work in a similar fashion to indexes in relational databases. Many systems also allow additional metadata outside the content of the document itself

  Read more →
• 

  Friendly artificial intelligence

  Friendly artificial intelligence (friendly AI or FAI) is hypothetical artificial general intelligence (AGI) that would have a positive (benign) effect on humanity or at least align with human interests such as fostering the improvement of the human species. It is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence and is closely related to machine ethics. While machine ethics is concerned with how an artificially intelligent agent should behave, friendly artificial intelligence research is focused on how to practically bring about this behavior and ensuring it is adequately constrained. == Etymology and usage == The term was coined by Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is best known for popularizing the idea, to discuss superintelligent artificial agents that reliably implement human values. Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig's leading artificial intelligence textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, describes the idea: Yudkowsky (2008) goes into more detail about how to design a Friendly AI. He asserts that friendliness (a desire not to harm humans) should be designed in from the start, but that the designers should recognize both that their own designs may be flawed, and that the robot will learn and evolve over time. Thus the challenge is one of mechanism design—to define a mechanism for evolving AI systems under a system of checks and balances, and to give the systems utility functions that will remain friendly in the face of such changes. "Friendly" is used in this context as technical terminology, and picks out agents that are safe and useful, not necessarily ones that are "friendly" in the colloquial sense. The concept is primarily invoked in the context of discussions of recursively self-improving artificial agents that rapidly explode in intelligence, on the grounds that this hypothetical technology would have a large, rapid, and difficult-to-control impact on human society. == Risks of unfriendly AI == The roots of concern about artificial intelligence are very old. Kevin LaGrandeur showed that the dangers specific to AI can be seen in ancient literature concerning artificial humanoid servants such as the golem, or the proto-robots of Gerbert of Aurillac and Roger Bacon. In those stories, the extreme intelligence and power of these humanoid creations clash with their status as slaves (which by nature are seen as sub-human), and cause disastrous conflict. By 1942 these themes prompted Isaac Asimov to create the "Three Laws of Robotics"—principles hard-wired into all the robots in his fiction, intended to prevent them from turning on their creators, or allowing them to come to harm. In modern times as the prospect of superintelligent AI looms nearer, philosopher Nick Bostrom has said that superintelligent AI systems with goals that are not aligned with human ethics are intrinsically dangerous unless extreme measures are taken to ensure the safety of humanity. He put it this way: Basically we should assume that a 'superintelligence' would be able to achieve whatever goals it has. Therefore, it is extremely important that the goals we endow it with, and its entire motivation system, is 'human friendly.' In 2008, Eliezer Yudkowsky called for the creation of "friendly AI" to mitigate existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence. He explains: "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." Steve Omohundro says that a sufficiently advanced AI system will, unless explicitly counteracted, exhibit a number of basic "drives", such as resource acquisition, self-preservation, and continuous self-improvement, because of the intrinsic nature of any goal-driven systems and that these drives will, "without special precautions", cause the AI to exhibit undesired behavior. Alexander Wissner-Gross says that AIs driven to maximize their future freedom of action (or causal path entropy) might be considered friendly if their planning horizon is longer than a certain threshold, and unfriendly if their planning horizon is shorter than that threshold. Luke Muehlhauser, writing for the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, recommends that machine ethics researchers adopt what Bruce Schneier has called the "security mindset": Rather than thinking about how a system will work, imagine how it could fail. For instance, he suggests even an AI that only makes accurate predictions and communicates via a text interface might cause unintended harm. In 2014, Luke Muehlhauser and Nick Bostrom underlined the need for 'friendly AI'; nonetheless, the difficulties in designing a 'friendly' superintelligence, for instance via programming counterfactual moral thinking, are considerable. == Coherent extrapolated volition == Yudkowsky advances the Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV) model. According to him, our coherent extrapolated volition is "our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted". Rather than a Friendly AI being designed directly by human programmers, it is to be designed by a "seed AI" programmed to first study human nature and then produce the AI that humanity would want, given sufficient time and insight, to arrive at a satisfactory answer. The appeal to an objective through contingent human nature (perhaps expressed, for mathematical purposes, in the form of a utility function or other decision-theoretic formalism), as providing the ultimate criterion of "Friendliness", is an answer to the meta-ethical problem of defining an objective morality; extrapolated volition is intended to be what humanity objectively would want, all things considered, but it can only be defined relative to the psychological and cognitive qualities of present-day, unextrapolated humanity. == Other approaches == Steve Omohundro has proposed a "scaffolding" approach to AI safety, in which one provably safe AI generation helps build the next provably safe generation. Seth Baum argues that the development of safe, socially beneficial artificial intelligence or artificial general intelligence is a function of the social psychology of AI research communities and so can be constrained by extrinsic measures and motivated by intrinsic measures. Intrinsic motivations can be strengthened when messages resonate with AI developers; Baum argues that, in contrast, "existing messages about beneficial AI are not always framed well". Baum advocates for "cooperative relationships, and positive framing of AI researchers" and cautions against characterizing AI researchers as "not want(ing) to pursue beneficial designs". In his book Human Compatible, AI researcher Stuart J. Russell lists three principles to guide the development of beneficial machines. He emphasizes that these principles are not meant to be explicitly coded into the machines; rather, they are intended for the human developers. The principles are as follows: The machine's only objective is to maximize the realization of human preferences. The machine is initially uncertain about what those preferences are. The ultimate source of information about human preferences is human behavior. The "preferences" Russell refers to "are all-encompassing; they cover everything you might care about, arbitrarily far into the future." Similarly, "behavior" includes any choice between options, and the uncertainty is such that some probability, which may be quite small, must be assigned to every logically possible human preference. == Public policy == James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention, suggested that "a public-private partnership has to be created to bring A.I.-makers together to share ideas about security—something like the International Atomic Energy Agency, but in partnership with corporations." He urges AI researchers to convene a meeting similar to the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA, which discussed risks of biotechnology. John McGinnis encourages governments to accelerate friendly AI research. Because the goalposts of friendly AI are not necessarily eminent, he suggests a model similar to the National Institutes of Health, where "Peer review panels of computer and cognitive scientists would sift through projects and choose those that are designed both to advance AI and assure that such advances would be accompanied by appropriate safeguards." McGinnis feels that peer review is better "than regulation to address technical issues that are not possible to capture through bureaucratic mandates". McGinnis notes that his proposal stands in contrast to that of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute, which generally aims to avoid government involvement in friendly AI. == Criticism == Some critics believe that both human-level AI and superintelligence are unlikely and that, therefore, friendly AI is unlik

  Read more →
• 

  Proof of authority

  Proof of authority (PoA) is a category of consensus protocols used with blockchains based on reputation and identity as a stake that delivers comparatively fast and efficient transactions (compared to proof-of-work and proof-of-stake). The most notable platforms using PoA are VeChain, Bitgert, Palm Network and Xodex. == Description == Proof-of-authority is a category of consensus protocols for networks and blockchains where transactions and blocks are built and validated by approved entities known as validators. Their permissions are often granted through a centralized authority, but they can also be granted through a council or decentralized organization. The term "proof-of-authority" was coined by Gavin Wood, co-founder of Ethereum and Parity Technologies. With PoA, validators are incentivized to maintain good behavior and honesty when validating blocks to avoid developing a negative reputation. PoA can have higher security than PoW and even PoS due to validators wanting to avoid damaging their reputation. Because PoA is permissioned, it is not fully trustless. Validators without good reputation may risk having their validator permissions removed. PoA is generally more efficient than PoW and PoS because it operates with fewer nodes and validators, thus requiring fewer duplicated resources.

  Read more →
• 

  Point-in-time recovery

  Point-in-time recovery (PITR) in the context of computers involves systems, often databases, whereby an administrator can restore or recover a set of data or a particular setting from a time in the past. Note for example Windows's capability to restore operating-system settings from a past date (for instance, before data corruption occurred). Time Machine for macOS provides another example of point-in-time recovery. Once PITR logging starts for a PITR-capable database, a database administrator can restore that database from backups to the state that it had at any time since.

  Read more →
• 

  EyeOS

  eyeOS was a web desktop for cloud computing, whose main purpose is to enable collaboration and communication among users. It is mainly written in PHP, XML, and JavaScript. It is a private-cloud application platform with a web-based desktop interface. eyeOS delivers a whole desktop from the cloud with file management, personal management information tools, and collaborative tools, with the integration of the client's applications. == History == The first publicly available eyeOS version was released on August 1, 2005, as eyeOS 0.6.0 in Olesa de Montserrat, Barcelona (Spain). A worldwide community of developers soon took part in the project and helped improve it by translating, testing, and developing it. After two years of development, the eyeOS Team published eyeOS 1.0 on June 4, 2007. Compared with previous versions, eyeOS 1.0 introduced a complete reorganization of the code and some new web technologies, like eyeSoft, a portage-based web software installation system. Moreover, eyeOS also included the eyeOS Toolkit, a set of libraries allowing easy and fast development of new web applications. With the release of eyeOS 1.1 on July 2, 2007, eyeOS changed its license and migrated from GNU GPL Version 2 to Version 3. Version 1.2 was released just a month after the 1.1 version and integrated full compatibility with Microsoft Word files. eyeOS 1.5 Gala was released on January 15, 2008. This version was the first to support both Microsoft Office and OpenOffice.org file formats for documents, presentations, and spreadsheets. With this version, eyeOS also gained the ability to import and export documents in both formats using server-side scripting. eyeOS 1.6 was released on April 25, 2008, and included many improvements such as synchronization with local computers, drag and drop, a mobile version, and more. eyeOS 1.8 Lars was released on January 7, 2009, and featured a completely rewritten file manager and a new sound API to develop media-rich applications. Later, on April 1, 2009, 1.8.5 was released with a new default theme and some rewritten apps, such as the Word Processor and the Address Book. On July 13, 2009, 1.8.6 was released with an interface for the iPhone and a new version of eyeMail with support for POP3 and IMAP. eyeOS 1.9 was released on December 29, 2009. It was followed up with the 1.9.0.1 release with minor fixes on February 18, 2010. These releases were the last of the "classic desktop" interfaces. A major re-work was completed in March 2010, now called eyeOS 2.x. However, a small group of eyeOS developers still maintain the code within the eyeOS forum, where support is provided, but the eyeOS group itself has stopped active 1.x development. It is now available as the On-eye project on GitHub. Active development was halted on 1.x as of February 3, 2010. eyeOS 2.0 release took place on March 3, 2010. This was a total restructure of the operating system. The 2.x stable is the new series of eyeOS, which is in active development and will replace 1.x as stable in a few months. It includes live collaboration and more social capabilities than eyeOS 1.x. eyeOS then released 2.2.0.0 on July 28, 2010. On December 14, 2010, a working group inside the eyeOS open-source development community began the structure development and further upgrade of eyeOS 1.9.x. The group's main goal is to continue the work eyeOS has stopped on 1.9.x. eyeOS released 2.5 on May 17, 2011. This was the last release under an open source license. It is available on SourceForge for download under another project called eyeOS 2.5 Open Source Version. On April 1, 2014, Telefónica announced their acquisition of eyeOS. eyeOS would maintain its headquarters in the Catalonia, Spain, where their staff would continue to work but now as part of Telefónica. After its integration into Telefónica, eyeOS would continue to function as an independent subsidiary under CEO Michel Kisfaludi. == Structure and API == For developers, EyeOS provides the eyeOS Toolkit, a set of libraries and functions to develop applications for eyeOS. Using the integrated Portage-based eyeSoft system, one can create their own repository for eyeOS and distribute applications through it. Each core part of the desktop is its own application, using JavaScript to send server commands as the user interacts. As actions are performed using AJAX (such as launching an application), it sends event information to the server. The server then sends back tasks for the client to do in XML format, such as drawing a widget. On the server, eyeOS uses XML files to store information. This makes it simple for a user to set up on the server, as it requires zero configuration other than the account information for the first user, making it simple to deploy. To avoid bottlenecks that flat files present, each user's information and settings are stored in different files, preventing resource starvation from occurring, though this in turn may create issues in high volume user environments due to host operating system open file descriptor limits. == Professional edition == A Professional Edition of eyeOS was launched on September 15, 2011, as an operating system for businesses. It uses a new version number and was released under version 1.0 instead of continuing with the next version number in the open source project. The Professional Edition retains the web desktop interface used by the open source version while targeting enterprise users. A host of new features designed for enterprises, like file sharing and synchronization (called eyeSync), Active Directory/LDAP connectivity, system-wide administration controls, and a local file execution tool called eyeRun were introduced. A new suite of Web Apps (a mail client, calendar, instant messaging, and collaboration tools) was also introduced, specific to the enterprise edition for the web desktop. With eyeOS Professional Edition 1.1, a to-do task manager tool, Citrix XenApp integration, and a Facebook like 'wall' for collaboration were introduced. == Awards == 2007 – Received the Softpedia's Pick award. 2007 – Finalist at SourceForge's 2007 Community Choice Awards at the "Best Project" category. The winner for that category was 7-Zip. 2007 – Won the Yahoo! Spain Web Revelation award in the Technology category. 2008 – Finalist for the Webware 100 awards by CNET, under the "Browsing" category. 2008 – Finalist at the SourceForge's 2008 Community Choice Awards at the "Most Likely to Change the World" category. The winner for that category was Linux. 2009 – Selected Project of the Month (August 2009) by SourceForge. 2009 – BMW Innovation Award. 2010 – Winner of Accelera (Ernst & Young). 2010 – Asturias & Girona Spanish Prince award “IMPULSA”. 2011 – Winner of MIT's TR35 award as Innovator of the Year in Spain. == Community == eyeOS community is formed with the eyeOS forums, which reached 10,000 members on April 4, 2008; the eyeOS wiki; and the eyeOS Application Communities, available at the eyeOS-Apps website, hosted and provided by openDesktop.org as well as Softpedia.

  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 →
• 

  WCF Data Services

  WCF Data Services (formerly ADO.NET Data Services, codename "Astoria") is a platform for what Microsoft calls Data Services. It is actually a combination of the runtime and a web service through which the services are exposed. It also includes the Data Services Toolkit which lets Astoria Data Services be created from within ASP.NET itself. The Astoria project was announced at MIX 2007, and the first developer preview was made available on April 30, 2007. The first CTP was made available as a part of the ASP.NET 3.5 Extensions Preview. The final version was released as part of Service Pack 1 of the .NET Framework 3.5 on August 11, 2008. The name change from ADO.NET Data Services to WCF data Services was announced at the 2009 PDC. == Overview == WCF Data Services exposes data, represented as Entity Data Model (EDM) objects, via web services accessed over HTTP. The data can be addressed using a REST-like URI. The data service, when accessed via the HTTP GET method with such a URI, will return the data. The web service can be configured to return the data in either plain XML, JSON or RDF+XML. In the initial release, formats like RSS and ATOM are not supported, though they may be in the future. In addition, using other HTTP methods like PUT, POST or DELETE, the data can be updated as well. POST can be used to create new entities, PUT for updating an entity, and DELETE for deleting an entity. == Description == Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) comes to the rescue when we find ourselves not able to achieve what we want to achieve using web services, i.e., other protocols support and even duplex communication. With WCF, we can define our service once and then configure it in such a way that it can be used via HTTP, TCP, IPC, and even Message Queues. We can consume Web Services using server side scripts (ASP.NET), JavaScript Object Notations (JSON), and even REST (Representational State Transfer). Understanding the basics When we say that a WCF service can be used to communicate using different protocols and from different kinds of applications, we will need to understand how we can achieve this. If we want to use a WCF service from an application, then we have three major questions: 1.Where is the WCF service located from a client's perspective? 2.How can a client access the service, i.e., protocols and message formats? 3.What is the functionality that a service is providing to the clients? Once we have the answer to these three questions, then creating and consuming the WCF service will be a lot easier for us. The WCF service has the concept of endpoints. A WCF service provides endpoints which client applications can use to communicate with the WCF service. The answer to these above questions is what is known as the ABC of WCF services and in fact are the main components of a WCF service. So let's tackle each question one by one. Address: Like a webservice, a WCF service also provides a URI which can be used by clients to get to the WCF service. This URI is called as the Address of the WCF service. This will solve the first problem of "where to locate the WCF service?" for us. Binding: Once we are able to locate the WCF service, one should think about how to communicate with the service (protocol wise). The binding is what defines how the WCF service handles the communication. It could also define other communication parameters like message encoding, etc. This will solve the second problem of "how to communicate with the WCF service?" for us. Contract: Now the only question one is left with is about the functionalities that a WCF service provides. The contract is what defines the public data and interfaces that WCF service provides to the clients. The URIs representing the data will contain the physical location of the service, as well as the service name. It will also need to specify an EDM Entity-Set or a specific entity instance, as in respectively http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection or http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection[SomeArtist] The former will list all entities in the Collection set whereas the latter will list only for the entity which is indexed by SomeArtist. The URIs can also specify a traversal of a relationship in the Entity Data Model. For example, http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection[SomeSong]/Genre traverses the relationship Genre (in SQL parlance, joins with the Genre table) and retrieves all instances of Genre that are associated with the entity SomeSong. Simple predicates can also be specified in the URI, like http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection[SomeArtist]/ReleaseDate[Year eq 2006] will fetch the items that are indexed by SomeArtist and had their release in 2006. Filtering and partition information can also be encoded in the URL as http://dataserver/service.svc/MusicCollection?$orderby=ReleaseDate&$skip=100&$top=50 Although the presence of skip and top keywords indicates paging support, in Data Services version 1 there is no method of determining the number of records available and thus impossible to determine how many pages there may be. The OData 2.0 spec adds support for the $count path segment (to return just a count of entities) and $inlineCount (to retrieve a page worth of entities and a total count without a separate round-trip....).

  Read more →
• 

  Documentation

  Documentation is any communicable material that is used to describe, explain, or instruct regarding some attributes of an object, system, or procedure, such as its parts, assembly, installation, maintenance, and use. As a form of knowledge management and knowledge organization, documentation can be provided on paper, online, or on digital or analog media, such as audio tape or CDs. Examples of such resources include user guides, white papers, online help, and quick-reference guides. Paper or hard-copy documentation has become less common. Contemporary documentation is often distributed through websites, software products, and other online applications. Documentation, understood as a set of instructional materials, should not be confused with documentation science, which is the study of the recording and retrieval of information. == Principles for producing documentation == While associated International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards are not easily available publicly, a guide from other sources for this topic may serve the purpose. Documentation development may involve document drafting, formatting, submitting, reviewing, approving, distributing, reposting and tracking, etc., and are convened by associated standard operating procedure in a regulatory industry. It could also involve creating content from scratch. Documentation should be easy to read and understand. If it is too long and too wordy, it may be misunderstood or ignored. Clear, concise words should be used, and sentences should be limited to a maximum of 15 words. Documentation intended for a general audience should avoid gender-specific terms and cultural biases. In a series of procedures, steps should be clearly numbered. == Producing documentation == Technical writers and corporate communicators are professionals whose field and work is documentation. Ideally, technical writers have a background in both the subject matter and also in writing, managing content, and information architecture. Technical writers more commonly collaborate with subject-matter experts, such as engineers, technical experts, medical professionals, etc. to define and then create documentation to meet the user's needs. Corporate communications includes other types of written documentation, for example: Market communications (MarCom): MarCom writers endeavor to convey the company's value proposition through a variety of print, electronic, and social media. This area of corporate writing is often engaged in responding to proposals. Technical communication (TechCom): Technical writers document a company's product or service. Technical publications can include user guides, installation and configuration manuals, and troubleshooting and repair procedures. Legal writing: This type of documentation is often prepared by attorneys or paralegals. Compliance documentation: This type of documentation codifies standard operating procedures, for any regulatory compliance needs, as for safety approval, taxation, financing, and technical approval. Healthcare documentation: This field of documentation encompasses the timely recording and validation of events that have occurred during the course of providing health care. == Documentation in computer science == === Types === The following are typical software documentation types: Request for proposal Requirements/statement of work/scope of work Software design and functional specification System design and functional specifications Change management, error and enhancement tracking User acceptance testing Manpages The following are typical hardware and service documentation types: Network diagrams Network maps Datasheet for IT systems (server, switch, e.g.) Service catalog and service portfolio (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) === Software Documentation Folder (SDF) tool === A common type of software document written in the simulation industry is the SDF. When developing software for a simulator, which can range from embedded avionics devices to 3D terrain databases by way of full motion control systems, the engineer keeps a notebook detailing the development "the build" of the project or module. The document can be a wiki page, Microsoft Word document or other environment. They should contain a requirements section, an interface section to detail the communication interface of the software. Often a notes section is used to detail the proof of concept, and then track errors and enhancements. Finally, a testing section to document how the software was tested. This documents conformance to the client's requirements. The result is a detailed description of how the software is designed, how to build and install the software on the target device, and any known defects and workarounds. This build document enables future developers and maintainers to come up to speed on the software in a timely manner, and also provides a roadmap to modifying code or searching for bugs. === Software tools for network inventory and configuration === These software tools can automatically collect data of your network equipment. The data could be for inventory and for configuration information. The Information Technology Infrastructure Library requests to create such a database as a basis for all information for the IT responsible. It is also the basis for IT documentation. Examples include XIA Configuration. == Documentation in criminal justice == "Documentation" is the preferred term for the process of populating criminal databases. Examples include the National Counterterrorism Center's Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, sex offender registries, and gang databases. == Documentation in early childhood education == Documentation, as it pertains to the early childhood education field, is "when we notice and value children's ideas, thinking, questions, and theories about the world and then collect traces of their work (drawings, photographs of the children in action, and transcripts of their words) to share with a wider community". Thus, documentation is a process, used to link the educator's knowledge and learning of the child/children with the families, other collaborators, and even to the children themselves. Documentation is an integral part of the cycle of inquiry - observing, reflecting, documenting, sharing and responding. Pedagogical documentation, in terms of the teacher documentation, is the "teacher's story of the movement in children's understanding". According to Stephanie Cox Suarez in "Documentation - Transforming our Perspectives", "teachers are considered researchers, and documentation is a research tool to support knowledge building among children and adults". Documentation can take many different styles in the classroom. The following exemplifies ways in which documentation can make the research, or learning, visible: Documentation panels (bulletin-board-like presentation with multiple pictures and descriptions about the project or event). Daily log (a log kept every day that records the play and learning in the classroom) Documentation developed by or with the children (when observing children during documentation, the child's lens of the observation is used in the actual documentation) Individual portfolios (documentation used to track and highlight the development of each child) Electronic documentation (using apps and devices to share documentation with families and collaborators) Transcripts or recordings of conversations (using recording in documentation can bring about deeper reflections for both the educator and the child) Learning stories (a narrative used to "describe learning and help children see themselves as powerful learners") The classroom as documentation (reflections and documentation of the physical environment of a classroom). Documentation is certainly a process in and of itself, and it is also a process within the educator. The following is the development of documentation as it progresses for and in the educator themselves: Develop(s) habits of documentation Become(s) comfortable with going public with recounting of activities Develop(s) visual literacy skills Conceptualize(s) the purpose of documentation as making learning styles visible, and Share(s) visible theories for interpretation purposes and further design of curriculum.

  Read more →
• 

  Minimum resolvable contrast

  Minimum resolvable contrast (MRC) is a subjective measure of a visible spectrum sensor’s or camera's sensitivity and ability to resolve data. A snapshot image of a series of three bar targets of selected spatial frequencies and various contrast coatings captured by the unit under test (UUT) is used to determine the MRC of the UUT, i.e., the visible spectrum camera or sensor. A trained observer selects the smallest target resolvable at each contrast level. Typically, specialized computer software collects the inputted data of the observer and provides a graph of contrast vs. spatial frequency at a given luminance level. A first order polynomial is fitted to the data and an MRC curve of spatial frequency versus contrast is generated.

  Read more →
• 

  The Citation Project

  The Citation Project is a series of studies that measure and analyze first-year college writing students' source use and their ability to understand and implement sources within their own writing. The Citation Project reveals students' source-use habits and the issues that can be seen based on their lack of proper citation skills, such as the prevalence of plagiarism, institution policies, and the results of current writing pedagogy. The Citation Project's central findings were first presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication in 2012. Although The Citation Project originally referred to this single 2012 study, the feedback received led to the conception of the Project as a broader initiative and as a place to gather and publish studies and data relating to student writing habits for the usage of other researches. == Method == The Citation Project's data comes from the work of 20 researchers analyzing 174 first-year composition students' research papers. The student papers studied originated from 16 institutions across the United States of America, including community colleges, public and private universities, denominational colleges, and Ivy Leagues. Researchers used bibliographic coding to aggregate data regarding the type, length, reading level, and usage of students' sources. == Findings == === Student source assessment and use === This study found that students were capable of identifying, locating, and accessing librarian-approved academic sources, most commonly accessing them with the internet. Despite students demonstrating their ability to find appropriate sources, they tend to exclusively cite the first few pages of their sources. Students' use and analysis of their citations are often limited, frequently resorting to patchwriting, directly restating their source's points, and omitting their own interpretations of their reference's ideas. The Citation Project also highlights students' struggle to accurately determine, address, and value their sources' bias, authority, and credibility. According to the Project's researchers' analysis, these habits demonstrate that first-year college writing students minimally engage with their sources and the academic conversations between them. One researcher from the Citation Project, Rebecca Moore Howard, believes these findings do not point towards students being lazy, but is rather a result of a writing pedagogy that prioritizes efficient, product-focused writing. Another interpretation offered by Sandra Jamieson, another researcher from the Citation Project explains their findings as a result of a lack of adherence to Information Learning (IL) Standards. === Pedagogy === A significant focus of The Citation Project is the development of pedagogical practices intended to equip students with writing and research techniques that will set them up for future success. Writers associated with The Citation Project, such as Tricia Serviss, believe that the practices of teachers surrounding academic integrity and writing practices are what form the foundation of how students think about writing and how to engage with assignments throughout their academic career. They also stress the importance of teaching students to effectively engage with sources rather than simply how to correctly cite them. The Citation Project asserts that endowing students with the ability to read, understand, and synthesize a variety of sources in their writing is a skill that will benefit them throughout their academic careers, and that the surface level typographical focus that many writing programs utilize is inadequate. == Plagiarism == One of the areas that The Citation Project also looks at is how students commit plagiarism throughout their writing. Plagiarism tends to be a checkpoint that gives instructors a sense where students' citation skills stand. Findings from The Citation Project reveal that the most common type of plagiarism is patchwriting which is the act of using the same sentence with only changing a couple of words. These types of issues can be seen as a learning curve due to lack of proper training. Student's that commit plagiarism are often unaware. === Policies === Another issue found is that academic plagiarism policies may not benefit a student's growth but may instead obstruct it. Policies against plagiarism tend to be harsh on the student that committed of offense. Even though student plagiarism is often unintentional academic institutions see this behavior as intentional. Student may then face harsh consequences as a result from their lack of citation knowledge. Additionally, higher level institutions assume that new students already have the skill set to avoid plagiarism which may be an unrealistic expectation. == Legacy == === Inspired studies === ==== Parrott and Napier ==== In one study, "Critical Reading and Student Self-Selected Texts: Results of a Collaborative, Explicit Curricular Approach," Jill Parrot and Trenia Napier quoted the Citation Project's findings as evidence that current collegiate writing curriculums are an ineffective means of teaching students how to properly write academic research papers. The researchers accredited current writing pedagogy's lack of emphasis on teaching critical reading skills. Parrott and Napier tested their thesis by seeing if students would produce more academic writing if they partook in a writing course that taught critical reading. Their results mostly went against this hypothesis, finding students who received additional critical reading training only significantly improved in how they integrated their sources. ==== Kocatepe ==== In May Mehtap Kocatep's study, "Reconceptualising the notion of finding information: How undergraduate students construct information as they read-to-write in an academic writing class," Kocatep expresses that she believes current conversations around writing pedagogy, including the Citation Project, operate with the underlying misconception that information is an easily discoverable static entity and its retrieval is an objective, unbiased decision. Kocatepe instead offers the analysis of what students view as valuable information and if it is worth using is influenced by the socially constructed meanings available to writers at the moment. To further examine students' source engagement, Kocatepe did a study on how female university students from the United Arab Emirates find, retrieve, use, and value sources. Kocatepe's results mainly noted students' almost exclusive reliance on using Google to find sources, as well as how students' navigated mainly English-speaking academic conversations as non-native English speakers. ==== Dahlen, Nordstrom-Sanchez, and Graff ==== Dahlen, Nordstrom-Sanchez, and Graff built their study off The Citation Project research in order to explore the attitudes and practices of students in an undergraduate writing course. As the researchers acknowledge, data collected by the Citation Project was the subject of the bulk of their analysis. This study sought to examine undergraduate writing practices tied to source-usage and elucidate any relevant trends. Dahlen, Nordstrom-Sanchez and Graff found that undergraduate writing students were not engaging with outside sources properly. Key issues discussed include lack of engagement with broad source ideas (in favor of picking out quotes), lack of paraphrasing, and inability to link information between multiple sources. ==== Davis ==== Phillip M. Davis based much of the analysis in his study on data gathered by the Citation Project. This study aimed to examine the particular effects web-based research and study had on undergraduate's papers and the replicability of their bibliographies. Davis sought to see how the shift from physical in-person library based research to online, often at-home research changed the function and usability of the bibliography as a form of documenting source usage in a given work. The primary method of analysis involved examining students' bibliographies to see where they were finding information online and how these sources were accessed. A main issue Davis found was "persistency" of URLs used for online citations. He found that only 18% of URL-based citations continued to function (the others either no longer pointing to the correct document or ceasing to exist altogether) within 3 years of their usage by students, and more than half of claimed online citations could not be found in any form. He suggests that this result brings up questions about how web-based citations should be dealt with in a university context.

  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 →
• 

  NCSA Brown Dog

  NCSA Brown Dog is a research project to develop a method for easily accessing historic research data stored in order to maintain the long-term viability of large bodies of scientific research. It is supported by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) that is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). == History == Brown Dog is part of the DataNet partners program funded by NSF in 2008. DataNet was conceived to address the increasingly digital and data-intensive nature of science, engineering and education. Brown Dog is part of a follow-on effort called Data Infrastructure Building Blocks (DIBBs), focused on building software to support DataNet. The project was proposed by researchers at NCSA and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign as well as researchers from Boston University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. == Unstructured, uncurated, long tail data == Much scientific data is smaller, unstructured and uncurated and thus not easily shared. Such data is sometimes referred to as "long tail" data. This borrows a term from statistics and refers to the tail of the distribution of project sizes. The majority of smaller projects lack the resources to properly steward the data they produce. This so-called "long tail" data, both past and present, has the potential to inform future research in many study areas. Much of this data has become inaccessible due to obsolete software and file formats. The resulting impossibility of reviewing data from older research disrupts the overall scientific research project. == Approach == Brown Dog describes itself as the "super mutt" of software (thus the name "Brown Dog"), serving as a low-level data infrastructure to interface digital data content across the internet. Its approach is to use every possible source of automated help (i.e., software) in existence in a robust and provenance-preserving manner to create a service that can deal with as much of this data as possible. The project sees the broader impact of its work in its potential to serve the general public as a sort of "DNS for data", with the goal of making all data and all file formats as accessible as webpages are today. == Technology == Brown Dog seeks to address problems involving the use of uncurated and unstructured data collections through the development of two services: the Data Access Proxy (DAP) to aid in the conversion of file formats and the Data Tilling Services (DTS) for the automatic extraction of metadata from file contents. Once developed, researchers and general public users will be able to download browser plugins and other tools from the Brown Dog tool catalog. === Data Tilling Service === Data Tilling Service (DTS) will allow users to search data collections using an existing file to discover other similar files in a collection. A DTS search field will be appended to configured browsers where example files can be dropped. This tells DTS to search all the files under a given URL for files similar to the dropped file. For example, while browsing an online image collection, a user could drop an image of three people into the search field, and the DTS would return all images in the collection that also contain three people. If DTS encounters a foreign file format, it will utilize DAP to make the file accessible. DTS also indexes the data and extract and appends metadata to files and collections enabling users to gain some sense of the type of data they are encountering. This service runs on port 9443. === Data Access Proxy === Data Access Proxy (DAP) allows users to access data files that would otherwise be unreadable. Similar to an internet gateway or Domain Name Service, the DAP configuration would be entered into a user's machine and browser settings. Data requests over HTTP would first be examined by DAP to determine if the native file format is readable on the client device. If not, DAP converts the file into the best available format readable by the client machine. Alternatively, the user could specify the desired format themselves. This service runs on port 8184. == Use cases == Brown Dog targets three use cases proposed by groups within the EarthCube research communities. Developers and researchers from these communities will work together on use cases that span geoscience, engineering, biology and social science. === Long tail vegetation data in ecology and global change biology === This use case is led by Michael Dietze, Boston University Data on the abundance, species composition, and size structure of vegetation is critically important for a wide array of sub-disciplines in ecology, conservation, natural resource management, and global change biology. However, addressing many of the pressing questions in these disciplines will require that terrestrial biosphere and hydrologic models are able to assimilate the large amount of long-tail data that exists but is largely inaccessible. The Brown Dog team in cooperation with researches from Dietze's lab will facilitate the capture of a huge body of smaller research-oriented vegetation data sets collected over many decades and historical vegetation data embedded in Public Land Survey data dating back to 1785. This data will be used as initial conditions for models, to make sense of other large data sets and for model calibration and validation. === Designing green infrastructure considering storm water and human requirements === This use case is led by Barbara Minsker], University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]; William Sullivan, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Arthur Schmidt, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This case study involves developing novel green infrastructure design criteria and models that integrate requirements for storm water management and ecosystem and human health and well being. To address the scientific and social problems associated with the design of green spaces, data accessibility and availability is a major challenge. This study will focus on identified areas of the Green Healthy Neighborhood Planning region within the City of Chicago where existing local sewer performance is most deficient and where changes in impervious area through green infrastructure would be beneficial to under served neighborhoods. Brown Dog will be used to extract long-tail experimental data on human landscape preferences and health impacts. This data will be used to develop a human health impacts model that will then be linked together with a terrestrial biosphere model and a storm water model using Brown Dog technology. === Development and application for critical zone studies === This use case is led by Praveen Kumar, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Critical Zone (CZ) is the "skin" of the earth that extends from the treetops to the bedrock that is created by life processes working at scales from microbes to biomes. The Critical Zone supports all terrestrial living systems. Its upper part is the bio-mantle. This is where terrestrial biota live, reproduce, use and expend energy, and where their wastes and remains accumulate and decompose. It encompasses the soil, which acts as a geomembrane through which water and solutes, energy, gases, solids, and organisms interact with the atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere. A variety of drivers affect this bio-dynamic zone, ranging from climate and deforestation to agriculture, grazing and human development. Understanding and predicting these effects is central to managing and sustaining vital ecosystem services such as soil fertility, water purification, and production of food resources, and, at larger scales, global carbon cycling and carbon sequestration. The CZ provides a unifying framework for integrating terrestrial surface and near-surface environments, and reflects an intricate web of biological and chemical processes and human impacts occurring at vastly different temporal and spatial scales. The nature of these data create significant challenges for inter-disciplinary studies of the CZ because integration of the variety and number of data products and models has been a barrier. On the other hand, CZ data provides an excellent opportunity for defining, testing and implementing Brown Dog technologies. In this context "unstructured" data is viewed broadly as consisting of a collection of heterogeneous data with formats that reflect temporal and disciplinary legacies, data from emerging low cost open hardware based sensors and embedded sensor networks that lack well defined metadata and sensor characteristics, as well as data that are available as maps, images and text. == NSF Award == CIF21 DIBBs: Brown Dog was awarded in the winter of 2013 with a start date of October 1, 2013. Estimated expiration date is September 30, 2018. The award amount was $10,519,716.00, the largest DIBB award. The principal investigator is Kenton McHenry of NCSA at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Coleaders are Jong Lee NCSA/UIU

  Read more →
• 

  Gibberlink

  GibberLink is an acoustic data transmission project, with an open-source client available on GitHub, in which two conversational AI agents switch from speaking to one another in a Human-listenable language (such as English) to their own unique language that consists of a sound-level protocol after confirming they are both AI agents. The project was created by Anton Pidkuiko and Boris Starkov. == Reception == The project won the global top prize at the ElevenLabs Worldwide Hackathon. It has also been cited as raising questions around AI ethics and oversight. On February 23, 2025, a YouTube video of two independent conversational ElevenLabs AI agents being prompted to chat about booking a hotel (one as a caller, one as a receptionist) received coverage for going viral. In this video, both agents are prompted to switch to ggwave data-over-sound protocol when they identify the other side as AI, and keep speaking in English otherwise.

  Read more →
• 

  Sedona Canada Principles

  The Sedona Canada Principles are a set of authoritative guidelines published by The Sedona Conference to aid members of the Canadian legal community involved in the identification, collection, preservation, review and production of electronically stored information (ESI). The principles were drafted by a small group of lawyers, judges and technologists called the Sedona Working Group 7 or Sedona Canada. Sedona Canada is an offshoot of The Sedona Conference which is an American "non-profit ... research and educational institute dedicated to the advanced study of law and policy in the areas of antitrust law, complex litigation, and intellectual property rights". == Background == Civil procedure in Canada is jurisdictional with each province following its own rules of civil procedure. However, each province must address the fact that due to the advancement of technology the discovery process enshrined in the rules of civil procedure can be potentially derailed due to the sheer volume of electronically stored information (ESI). When dealing with litigation matters that involve electronically stored information (ESI), the discovery process is commonly called e-discovery. The problems associated with e-discovery in Canada led to the creation of the Sedona Canada Principles. Rule 29.1.03(4) of the wikibooks:Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure specifically refers to the Sedona Canada Principles in referencing Principles re Electronic Discovery although it has been reported that this rule has been largely ignored in practice. == Summary == The Sedona Canada Principles largely refer to the processes found in the Electronic Discovery Reference Model. The principles urge proportionality due to the potentially enormous volumes of documents that may be discoverable when dealing with ESI. They also encourage good faith in the document preservation stage and regular meetings between parties to discuss the scope of the litigation. Parties are urged to be aware of the potential costs involved in producing relevant ESI but are advised that only reasonably accessible ESI need be produced. The principles stipulate that parties should not be required to search for or collect deleted material unless there is an agreement or court order related to those terms. The use of electronic tools and processes such as data sampling and web harvesting are acceptable practices. Parties are encouraged to agree early in the litigation process on production format required for the exchange of relevant documents as part of the discovery process (native files, pdf, tiff, metadata requirements etc.). Agreements or direction should be sought, if necessary, with respect to privilege or other confidential information related to production of electronic documents and data. Parties should be aware that legal precedents can be formed as a result of e-discovery practices and sanctions can be considered for a party's failure to meet their discovery obligations unless it can be demonstrated that the failure was not intentional. All parties must bear the “reasonable” costs associated with e-discovery but other arrangements can be agreed upon by the parties or by court order. == Caselaw == In Warman v. National Post Company proportionality was at issue in a case where the plaintiff was suing the defendant for libel. A motion was brought by the defendant to have the plaintiff provide a mirror image of his hard drive in an effort to prove an internet article was indeed authored by the plaintiff. Issues of proportionality and the work of the Sedona Conference and Sedona Canada Principles were factored in to the decision to grant the defendant only limited access to the hard drive. In Innovative Health Group Inc. v. Calgary Health Region the plaintiff's legal obligation to produce imaged hard drives is in question. Justice Conrad refers to the advice of Sedona Canada on proportionality and problems associated with time and expense related to the difficulties associated with electronically stored information. In York University v. Michael Markicevic Justice Brown specifically refers to the need for the parties to agree upon a formal e-discovery plan to be drafted in consultation with Sedona Canada Principles. In Friends of Lansdowne v. Ottawa Master MacLeod refers to the need for Sedona Canada principles and states “This is particularly true in the current information age when e-mail is ubiquitous and multiple copies or variants of messages may be held on various kinds of data storage devices including individual hard drives, e-mail and Blackberry servers. Even documents that ultimately exist in paper form normally begin their life on computers and negotiations frequently involve exchanges of electronic drafts. To find every scrap of paper and every electronic trace of relevant information has become a nightmarish task that threatens to render any kind of litigation extravagantly expensive.” == Criticism == Critics of the Sedona Canada Principles believe they should address system integrity and that the true history of any file preserved cannot be identified without proof of the integrity of the electronic record systems management it comes from. Other criticism is more directed to the Sedona Canada working group and complaints that it is insular and irrelevant.

  Read more →
• 

  Agentic commerce

  Agentic commerce (also referred to as agent-based commerce) describes an emerging form of e-commerce in which autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) agents independently execute purchasing and payment processes on behalf of users or organizations. Unlike conventional digital commerce systems, which require direct human interaction at key decision points, agentic commerce systems are designed to search for products or services, evaluate options, make purchasing decisions, and complete payments without real-time human involvement. An emerging development within the broader fields of e-commerce, fintech, and artificial intelligence; agentic commerce combines advances in generative AI, autonomous agents, application programming interfaces (APIs), and digital payment infrastructures to direct transactions with no direct human interaction. == Characteristics == A defining feature of agentic commerce is the delegation of end-to-end commercial activities to software agents. These agents typically operate according to predefined user preferences, rules, or constraints, such as price limits, quality criteria, delivery times, or preferred payment methods. Based on these parameters, an agent can autonomously perform tasks including product discovery, price comparison, contract selection, order placement, and payment execution. In contrast to decision-support systems, which provide recommendations to human users, agentic commerce systems are designed to act independently. Human involvement may be limited to initial configuration, periodic supervision, or exception handling. == Comparison with traditional and AI-assisted commerce == Traditional e-commerce requires users to manually browse products, select offers, and authorize payments. Generative AI systems used in commerce commonly assist users by answering questions or suggesting options, and do not complete transactions autonomously. Agentic commerce differs in that decision-making authority is partially or fully transferred to AI agents. As a result, the conventional customer journey, characterized by conscious decision points, may be replaced by continuous, automated micro-decisions performed by software. == Applications and business use cases == Potential applications of agentic commerce include recurring purchases, subscription management, business-to-business procurement, inventory replenishment, and price monitoring. In such contexts, transactions are often predictable and standardized, making them suitable for automation. From a business perspective, agentic commerce systems may be used to optimize supply chains, manage inventory levels, negotiate prices algorithmically, or execute transactions across multiple platforms. Enterprises adopting the new technology include retailers Walmart, Home Depot, Wayfair and Urban Outfitters, and ad tech DSPs, including Google Ads, Amazon, and Yahoo. Chinese tech firms are using apps to provide full-service shopping and payment tools. These includes Alibaba, Tencent, and ByteDance who are currently developing AI powered shopping apps. The Qwen AI chatbot allows users to complete transactions directly within its interface. US firms are still leading in developing AI models but integration is slower due to privacy restrictions. == Payments and technical infrastructure == Agentic commerce relies on digital payment systems capable of supporting automated, machine-initiated transactions, including API-based payment processing, tokenization, real-time authorization, and continuous risk monitoring. Typical user interfaces, such as shopping carts, may be replaced by backend integrations between AI agents, merchants, and payment service providers. For example, Iike 2025, Alibaba launched Alipay AI Pay, which grew and began operating as an application for different retailers. In December 2025, Alipay teamed up with Rokid to enable developers to integrate AI payments into AI agents on Rokid's Lingzhu platform. In January 2025, Alipay unveiled the Agentic Commerce Trust Protocol in partnership with Alibaba's consumer AI applications, such as the Qwen App and Taobao Instant Commerce. Qwen adopted the platform first, connecting it to Taobao Instant Commerce and Alipay AI Pay. Users could use Qwen's agentic feature to place food and drink orders within the application instead of having to click outside to an external browser. For merchants, participation in agentic commerce may require products and services to be presented in structured, machine-readable formats to ensure discoverability and interoperability with autonomous agents. == Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP) == In January 2026, Google announced the Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP), an open-source web standard intended to enable interoperability between AI agents and retail systems across the shopping journey, from discovery and checkout to post-purchase support. UCP makes use of REST, JSON-RPC transports, and support for Agent Payments Protocol (AP2), Agent2Agent (A2A), and Model Context Protocol (MCP). == Legal, regulatory, and security considerations == The use of autonomous agents in commerce raises legal and regulatory questions, particularly regarding authorization, liability, consumer protection, and fraud prevention. Existing payment and contract frameworks are generally based on human decision-makers, and their applicability to autonomous agents remains an area of active discussion. Open issues include responsibility for unauthorized or erroneous transactions, mechanisms for dispute resolution, standards for agent authentication, and compliance with data protection and financial regulations. Continuous, automated transaction patterns may also require new approaches to security and risk assessment. Traditional fraud models centered on identity verification may be insufficient for agentic commerce, and that merchants may need intent-based detection methods using machine learning and behavioral analysis to distinguish legitimate AI agents from malicious automation. === Governance frameworks === The deployment of autonomous AI agents in commercial environments has prompted the development of dedicated governance frameworks. These aim to define operational boundaries, decision authority, oversight mechanisms, and accountability structures for agentic systems. The Agentic Commerce Framework (ACF), created in 2025 by Vincent Dorange, is a governance standard that structures the deployment of autonomous AI agents around four founding principles (Decision Sovereignty, Governance by Design, Ultimate Human Control, Traceable Accountability), four operational layers, and 18 governance KPIs. In January 2026, Singapore's Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) published the Model AI Governance Framework for Agentic AI, extending its existing AI governance guidelines to address agent-specific risks including delegation chains and multi-agent coordination. The Cloud Security Alliance (CSA) has also proposed an Agentic Trust Framework applying zero-trust principles to AI agent governance. == Ecosystem and implementation == The adoption of agentic commerce typically requires changes in commerce architecture, data modeling, identity and permissions, and API-based orchestration of checkout and post-purchase workflows. Management consultancies have identified agentic commerce as a structural evolution of digital commerce, emphasizing the role of AI-driven agents in automating discovery, decision-making, and transaction processes across commerce systems. McKinsey & Company has described agentic commerce as a significant shift in how consumers interact with brands and how enterprises design their commerce operating models. In Europe, this ecosystem also includes digital commerce consultancies specializing in the adoption of agentic commerce. Consulting firms such as Horrea support brands in understanding and implementing the technological and organizational shifts associated with agentic commerce. == Market development and outlook == Agentic commerce is generally regarded as an early-stage development. Industry analysts have projected that AI-driven agents could account for a small but growing share of digital payment transactions within the coming years. Due to the scale of global digital commerce, even limited adoption could represent substantial transaction volumes. Analysts expect that by 2029, AI agents could handle between 1% and 4% of all digital payment transactions. With a projected total transaction volume of over $36 trillion a year, even a small share translates into a market worth up to $1.47 trillion. According to a McKinsey study from October 2025, agentic commerce projects that by 2030, the U.S. business-to-consumer retail market alone could see up to $1 trillion in revenue orchestrated through agentic commerce. On a global scale, the opportunity could range from $3 trillion to $5 trillion. Early experiments and pilot projects have demonstrated both the potential and current limitations of the

  Read more →