Datacap (an IBM Company), a privately owned company, manufactures and sells computer software, and services. Datacap's first product, Paper Keyboard, was a "forms processing" product and shipped in 1989. In August 2010, IBM announced that it had acquired Datacap for an undisclosed amount. == Overview == Datacap sells products through a value-added distribution network worldwide. The software is classified as "enterprise software", meaning that it requires trained professionals to install and configure. Although the Company has focused on providing solutions for scanning paper documents, most recently Company materials have emphasized customer requirements to handle electronic documents ("eDocs"), documents being received into an organization electronically (usually email). Datacap claims that its software is unique because of the rules engine ("Rulerunner") used for processing inbound documents, including performing the image processing (deskew, noise removal, etc.), optical character recognition (OCR), intelligent character recognition (ICR), validations, and export-release formatting of extracted data to target ERP and line of business application.
AI washing
AI washing is a deceptive marketing tactic that consists of promoting a product or a service by overstating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and the integration of it. Companies often involve in the practice to mislead customers to boost their offerings, and to secure funding from investors. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency, and legal issues. == Definition == AI washing is a deceptive marketing practice. It involves promoting a product or a service by overstating the role of artificial intelligence (AI) and its integration in the design and manufacture of the same. The practice raises concerns regarding transparency, compliance with security regulations, and consumer trust in the AI industry potentially hampering legitimate advancements in AI. The term was first defined by the AI Now Institute, a research institute based at New York University in 2019. The term is derived from greenwashing, another deceptive marketing technique that misrepresents a product's environmental impact in a similar manner. AI washing might involve a company claiming to have used AI in the development or enhancement of its products or services without its actual involvement, or using buzzwords such as "smart" or "AI-powered" without the product actually offering it or making use of it. A company may overstate the usage of AI or misuse the term, which is also construed as AI washing. In 2026, The Washington Post defined AI washing as "a trend for bosses to blame layoffs on the productive capabilities of AI and its ability to replace workers, even when job cuts may have little to do with the technology". == Usage and effects == AI washing can lead to deception of customers and misleading of investors. It is also an illegal and unethical practice that lacks transparency regarding disclosing the details of a product or a service. Companies get involved in such a practice often in response to competition who might have used AI in their offerings. It might also be used as a ploy to secure funding and investment, assuming that it will attract them towards it. AI washing has been compared to dot-com bubble, when businesses appended "dot-com" to the end of the business name to boost their valuation. In September 2023, Coca-Cola released a new product called Coca-Cola Y3000, and the company stated that the Y3000 flavor had been "co-created with human and artificial intelligence". The company was accused of AI washing due to no proof of AI involvement in the creation of the product, and critics believed that AI was used as a way to grab consumer attention more than it was used in the actual product creation. In 2026, mass tech layoffs were attributed to AI washing from AI innovation instead of balance sheet restructuring. == Mitigation == Companies are expected to be transparent and clearer in communicating the usage of AI in their products or services. Consumers can mitigate the same by requesting for hard evidence from the companies regarding the usage of AI tools. Customers should evaluate the product or service as a whole rather than being swayed by the usage of AI. Informed decision making and purchasing can keep them from falling for such marketing gimmicks. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposes penalties for companies indulging in such practices. In March 2024, the SEC imposed the first civil penalties on two companies for misleading statements about their use of AI, and in July 2024, it charged a corporate executive from a supposed AI hiring startup with fraud for the usage of buzzwords related to AI.
Organizational information theory
Organizational Information Theory (OIT) is a communication theory, developed by Karl Weick, offering systemic insight into the processing and exchange of information within organizations and among its members. Unlike the past structure-centered theory, OIT focuses on the process of organizing in dynamic, information-rich environments. Given that, it contends that the main activity of organizations is the process of making sense of equivocal information. Organizational members are instrumental to reduce equivocality and achieve sensemaking through some strategies — enactment, selection, and retention of information. With a framework that is interdisciplinary in nature, organizational information theory's desire to eliminate both ambiguity and complexity from workplace messaging builds upon earlier findings from general systems theory and phenomenology. == Inspiration and influence of pre-existing theories == 1. General Systems Theory The General Systems Theory, on its most basic premise, describes the phenomenon of a cohesive group of interrelated parts. When one part of the system is changed or affected, it will affect the system as a whole. Weick uses this theoretical framework from 1950 to influence his organizational information theory. Likewise, organizations can be viewed as a system of related parts that work together towards a common goal or vision. Applying this to Weick's organizational information theory, organizations must work to reduce ambiguity and complexity in the workplace to maximize cohesiveness and efficiency. Weick uses the term, coupling, to describe how organizations, like a system, can be composed of interrelated and dependent parts. Coupling looks at the relationship between people and work. There are two types of coupling: 1. Loose coupling Loose coupling describes that while people within the organization or system are connected and often work together, they do not depend on one another to continue or fully complete individual work. The dependencies are weak and workflow is flexible. For example, "if the whole Science department completely shuts down because all of teachers are sick or for whatsoever reason, the school can still continue to operate because other departments are still present." 2. Tight coupling Tight coupling describes when connections within an organization are strong and dependent. If one part of the organization is not operating correctly, the organization as a whole cannot continue to their fullest potential. " For instance, the format and ink section completely shuts down hence the succeeding steps cannot be continued, so the whole process of the organization will be dropped. Thus, components of a system are directly dependent on one another." 2. Theory of evolution The theory of evolution, by Charles Darwin, is a framework for survival of the fittest. According to Darwin, organisms attempt to adapt and live in an unforgiving environment. Those that are unsuccessful in adaptation do not survive, while the strong organisms continue to thrive and reproduce. Weick invokes inspiration from Darwin, to incorporate a biological perspective to his theory. It is natural for organizations to have to adapt to incoming information that often interfere with the preexisting environment. Organizations that are able to plan and alter strategies in accordance with their constant need of organizing and sense making, will survive and be the most successful. However, there is a notable difference between animal evolution and survival of the fittest in organizations, "A given animal is what it is; variation comes through mutation. But the nature of an organization can change when its members alter their behavior." == Assumptions == 1. Human organizations exist in an information environment Unlike senders and receivers models, OIT stands on the situational perspective. Karl Weick views a human organization as an open social system. People in that system develop a mechanism to establish goals, obtain and process information, or perceive the environment. In this process, people and the environment come to conclusions on "what's going on here?". Colville believes that this attributional process is retrospective. Take an education institution as an example. A university can obtain information regarding students' needs in numerous ways. It might create feedback section in its website. It could organize alumni panels or academic affairs to attract prospective students and collect concrete questions they are interested in. It may also conduct the survey or host focus group to get the information. After that, the staff of the university have to decide how to deal with these information, based on which, it has to set and accomplish its goals for current and prospective students. 2. The information an organization receives differs in terms of equivocality Weick posits that numerous feasible interpretations of reality exist when organizations process information. Their varying levels of understandability lead to different outcomes of information inputs. In other academic works, scholars tend to say that messages are uncertain or ambiguous. While according to OIT, messages are described to be equivocal. believes that people proactively exclude a number of possibilities to perceive what is going on in the environment. Due to OIT's situational perspective, the meanings of messages consist of the messages, the interpretations of receivers, and the interactional context. However, ambiguity and uncertainty can mean that a standard answer - the only one true objective interpretation - exists. Also, Weick emphasizes that "the equivocality is the engine that motivates people to organize". Maitlis and Christianson states that the equivocality trigger sensemaking for three reasons: environment jolts and organizational crises, threats to identity, and planned change interventions. 3. Human organizations engage in information processing to reduce equivocality of information Based upon the first two assumption, OIT proposes that information processing within organizations is a social activity. Sharing is the key feature of organizational information processing. In that particular context, members jointly make sense the reality by reducing equivocality. It other words, the sensemaking is a joint responsibility which includes numerous interdependent people to accomplish. In this process, organizations and its members combine actions and attributions together in order to find the balance between the complexity of thoughts and the simplicity of actions. Weick also proposes that people create their own environment though enactment, which is the action of making sense. This is because people have different perceptual schemas and selective perception, so people create different information environments. In creating different information environments, people can arrive at the same or close to the same understanding or solution through different thought processes and overall understanding. == Key concepts == === The organization === In order to place Weick's vision regarding Organizational Information Theory into proper working context, exploring his view regarding what constitutes the organization and how its individuals embody that construct might yield significant insights. From a fundamental standpoint, he shared a belief that organizational validation is derived---not through bricks and mortar, or locale—but from a series of events which enable entities to "collect, manage and use the information they receive." In elaborating further on what constitutes an organization during early writings outlining OIT, Weick said, "The word organization is a noun and it is also a myth. if one looks for an organization, one will not find it. What will be found is that there are events linked together, that transpire within concrete walls and these sequences, their pathways, their timing, are the forms we erroneously make into substances when we talk about an organization". When viewed in this modular fashion, the organization meets Weick's theoretical vision by encompassing parameters that are less bound by concrete, wood, and structural restraints and more by an ability to serve as a repository where information can be consistently and effectively channeled. Taking these defining characteristics into account, proper channel execution relies on maximization of messaging clarity, context, delivery and evolution through any system. One example as to how these interactions might unfold on a more granular level within these confines can be gleaned through Weick's double interact loop, which he considers the "building blocks of every organization". Simply put, double interacts describe interpersonal exchanges that, inherently, occur across the organizational chain of command and in life, itself. Thus: "An act occurs when you say something (Can I have a Popsicle?). An interact occurs when you say something and I respond ("No, it will spoil your dinner
Basic Formal Ontology
Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) is a top-level ontology developed by Barry Smith and colleagues to promote interoperability among domain ontologies. The BFO methodology accomplishes this through a process of downward population. BFO is a formal ontology. The structure of BFO is based on a division of entities into two disjoint categories of continuant and occurrent, the former consists of objects and spatial regions, the latter contains processes conceived as extended through (or spanning) time. BFO thereby seeks to consolidate both time and space within a single framework A guide to building BFO-conformant domain ontologies was published by MIT Press in 2015. In 2021, the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2:2021 Information Technology — Top-level Ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO) was published by the Joint Technical Committee of the International Standards Organization and the International Electrotechnical Commission. ISO/IEC 21838 is a multi-part standard. Part 1 of the standard specifies the requirements that must be met if an ontology is to be classified as a top-level ontology by the standard. == History == BFO arose against the background of research in ontologies in the domain of geospatial information science by David Mark, Pierre Grenon, Achille Varzi and others, with a special role for the study of vagueness and of the ways sharp boundaries in the geospatial and other domains are created by fiat. BFO has passed through four major releases. 2001: release of BFO 1 2007: release of BFO 1.1 2015: release of BFO 2.0 2020: release of BFO 2020 2021: release of BFO 2020 as an ISO/IEC Standard The current revision was released in 2020, and this forms the basis of the standard ISO/IEC 21838-2, which was released by the Joint Committee of the International Standards Organization and International Electrotechnical Commission in 2021. == Applications == BFO has been adopted as a foundational ontology by over 650 ontology projects, principally in the areas of biomedical ontology, security and defense (intelligence) ontology, and industry ontologies. Example applications of BFO can be seen in the Ontology for Biomedical Investigations (OBI). In January 2024, BFO and the Common Core Ontologies (CCO), a suite of BFO-extension ontologies, were adopted as the "baseline standards for formal DOD and IC ontology" development work in the DOD and Intelligence Community. A memorandum to this effect was signed by the chief data officers of the DOD, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office.
Grid-oriented storage
Grid-oriented Storage (GOS) was a term used for data storage by a university project during the era when the term grid computing was popular. == Description == GOS was a successor of the term network-attached storage (NAS). GOS systems contained hard disks, often RAIDs (redundant arrays of independent disks), like traditional file servers. GOS was designed to deal with long-distance, cross-domain and single-image file operations, which is typical in Grid environments. GOS behaves like a file server via the file-based GOS-FS protocol to any entity on the grid. Similar to GridFTP, GOS-FS integrates a parallel stream engine and Grid Security Infrastructure (GSI). Conforming to the universal VFS (Virtual Filesystem Switch), GOS-FS can be pervasively used as an underlying platform to best utilize the increased transfer bandwidth and accelerate the NFS/CIFS-based applications. GOS can also run over SCSI, Fibre Channel or iSCSI, which does not affect the acceleration performance, offering both file level protocols and block level protocols for storage area network (SAN) from the same system. In a grid infrastructure, resources may be geographically distant from each other, produced by differing manufacturers, and have differing access control policies. This makes access to grid resources dynamic and conditional upon local constraints. Centralized management techniques for these resources are limited in their scalability both in terms of execution efficiency and fault tolerance. Provision of services across such platforms requires a distributed resource management mechanism and the peer-to-peer clustered GOS appliances allow a single storage image to continue to expand, even if a single GOS appliance reaches its capacity limitations. The cluster shares a common, aggregate presentation of the data stored on all participating GOS appliances. Each GOS appliance manages its own internal storage space. The major benefit of this aggregation is that clustered GOS storage can be accessed by users as a single mount point. GOS products fit the thin-server categorization. Compared with traditional “fat server”-based storage architectures, thin-server GOS appliances deliver numerous advantages, such as the alleviation of potential network/grid bottle-necks, CPU and OS optimized for I/O only, ease of installation, remote management and minimal maintenance, low cost and Plug and Play, etc. Examples of similar innovations include NAS, printers, fax machines, routers and switches. An Apache server has been installed in the GOS operating system, ensuring an HTTPS-based communication between the GOS server and an administrator via a Web browser. Remote management and monitoring makes it easy to set up, manage, and monitor GOS systems. == History == Frank Zhigang Wang and Na Helian proposed a funding proposal to the UK government titled “Grid-Oriented Storage (GOS): Next Generation Data Storage System Architecture for the Grid Computing Era” in 2003. The proposal was approved and granted one million pounds in 2004. The first prototype was constructed in 2005 at Centre for Grid Computing, Cambridge-Cranfield High Performance Computing Facility. The first conference presentation was at IEEE Symposium on Cluster Computing and Grid (CCGrid), 9–12 May 2005, Cardiff, UK. As one of the five best work-in-progress, it was included in the IEEE Distributed Systems Online. In 2006, the GOS architecture and its implementations was published in IEEE Transactions on Computers, titled “Grid-oriented Storage: A Single-Image, Cross-Domain, High-Bandwidth Architecture”. Starting in January 2007, demonstrations were presented at Princeton University, Cambridge University Computer Lab and others. By 2013, the Cranfield Centre still used future tense for the project. Peer-to-peer file sharings use similar techniques.
CMU Pronouncing Dictionary
The CMU Pronouncing Dictionary (also known as CMUdict) is an open-source pronouncing dictionary originally created by the Speech Group at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) for use in speech recognition research. CMUdict provides a mapping orthographic/phonetic for English words in their North American pronunciations. It is commonly used to generate representations for speech recognition (ASR), e.g. the CMU Sphinx system, and speech synthesis (TTS), e.g. the Festival system. CMUdict can be used as a training corpus for building statistical grapheme-to-phoneme (g2p) models that will generate pronunciations for words not yet included in the dictionary. The most recent release is 0.7b; it contains over 134,000 entries. An interactive lookup version is available. == Database format == The database is distributed as a plain text file with one entry to a line in the format "WORD
Visual Peer Review
== Development and history == Visual Peer Review was first described in a 2017 classroom study by Friedman and Rosen, which examined how students evaluate peer-produced data visualizations using structured rubrics. Developed within the broader fields of data visualization, information visualization, and educational technology, the system emphasized clear labeling, visual integrity, and reduction of chartjunk. Students assigned rubric scores and provided written explanations, aligning the activity with established principles of peer review. Follow-up research expanded both the methodological and analytic dimensions of the framework. Friedman and colleagues applied natural language processing (NLP) to peer-review text to analyze part-of-speech patterns, sentence complexity, and comment length. These analyses offered insight into how students expressed critique and engaged with core design principles. Later studies incorporated advanced statistical modeling to evaluate system-level behavior, including peer review networks and reviewer typologies. Between 2021 and 2024, the framework underwent iterative refinement through a series of studies that explored interface design, behavioral nudges, reviewer engagement, and social network dynamics. The system was influenced by earlier work in computer-supported peer review—particularly My Reviewers, a rubric-based writing assessment platform developed by Joe Moxley at the University of South Florida. While Moxley's platform focused on text-based feedback, Visual Peer Review adapted its core structure to support critique of DataVis and visual analytics. To guide structured analysis and feedback, Friedman and Rosen also drew on the “what, why, and how” framework introduced by Liu and Stasko (2010), which emphasizes understanding a visualization's purpose, task alignment, and encoding strategy. == Framework and components == Visual Peer Review is designed to support critique, reflection, and learning in courses focusing on data visualization, visual analytics, and related fields in educational technology. The system consists of interconnected component. Core components include: Visual Artifacts: Students generate original visualizations using software such as R (e.g., ggplot2), Tableau, Python, or Adobe Illustrator. These artifacts may include statistical graphics, dashboards, or design-oriented infographics. Rubric-Based Assessment: Peer reviewers evaluate submitted visualizations using structured rubrics grounded in visualization theory and design heuristics. Rubric dimensions typically include: Use of labeling and axis scales Minimalization of chartjunk and clutter (following Tufte's principles) Optimization of the data–ink ratio Preservation of visual integrity through accurate representation (lie factor) Written Peer Comments: In addition to scoring, reviewers provide narrative feedback explaining their reasoning. These comments aim to improve design literacy, strengthen visual reasoning, and support the learning process common to peer review across educational contexts. Instructor Analytics Dashboard: Instructors access an analytics dashboard that displays peer-review activity across the course. Metrics include comment length, rubric coverage, participation patterns, and potential indicators of disengagement. These features position the framework within the domain of learning analytics, where visualized data helps instructors monitor student progress and identify support needs. == Ongoing development == Current work focuses on enhancing rubric structure, integrating principles from human–computer interaction, DataVis and expanding learning-analytics capabilities. Ongoing studies investigate how interface design, reviewer behavior, and classroom context influence the quality of feedback and overall engagement. Continuing development positions Visual Peer Review at the intersection of data visualization education, peer assessment, and educational technology.