Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex
G'MIC
G'MIC (GREYC's Magic for Image Computing) is a free and open-source framework for image processing. It defines a script language that allows the creation of complex macros. Originally usable only through a command line interface, it is currently mostly popular as a GIMP plugin, and is also included in Krita. G'MIC is dual-licensed under CECILL-2.1 or CECILL-C. == Features == G'MIC's graphical interface is notable for its noise removal filters, which came from an earlier project called GREYCstoration by the same authors. G'MIC offers many built-in commands for image processing, including basic mathematical manipulations, look up tables, and filtering operations. More complex macros and pipelines built out of those commands are defined in its library files. == Interpreters == === Command line === G'MIC is primarily a script language callable from a shell. For example, to display an image: This command displays the image contained in the file image.jpg and allows zooming in to examine values. Several filters can be applied in succession. For example, to crop and resize an image: === Graphical interface === G'MIC comes with a Qt-based graphical interface, which may be integrated as a Gimp or Krita plugin. It contains several hundred filters written in the G'MIC language, dynamically updated through an internet feed. The interface provides a preview and setting sliders for each filter. G'MIC is one of the most popular Gimp plugins. === G'MIC Online === Most of the filters available for the graphical interface are also available online. === ZArt === ZArt is a graphical interface for real-time manipulation of webcam images. === libgmic === Libgmic is a C++ library that can be linked to third-party applications. It sees integration in Flowblade and Veejay.
Anyword
Anyword is a technology company that offers an artificial intelligence platform, using natural language processing to generate and optimize marketing text for websites, social media, email, and ads. The company also offers a complete managed service to publishers and brands to help them increase their revenue through social ads. It is used by National Geographic, Red Bull, The New York Times, BBC, Ted Baker, etc. The company has an office in New York, and Tel Aviv. == History == It was founded in 2013 — its original name was Keywee Inc. In March 2015, Anyword received $9.1 million in the Series A funding round led by a notable group of investors. In July 2016, the company was selected as an official Facebook Marketing Partner. In August 2019, Anyword was named Best Content Marketing Platform in the Digiday Technology Award winners. In November 2021, it raised $21 million in its Series B funding round.
Distributed transaction
A distributed transaction operates within a distributed environment, typically involving multiple nodes across a network depending on the location of the data. A key aspect of distributed transactions is atomicity, which ensures that the transaction is completed in its entirety or not executed at all. It's essential to note that distributed transactions are not limited to databases. The Open Group, a vendor consortium, proposed the X/Open Distributed Transaction Processing Model (X/Open XA), which became a de facto standard for the behavior of transaction model components. Databases are common transactional resources and, often, transactions span a couple of such databases. In this case, a distributed transaction can be seen as a database transaction that must be synchronized (or provide ACID properties) among multiple participating databases which are distributed among different physical locations. The isolation property (the I of ACID) poses a special challenge for multi database transactions, since the (global) serializability property could be violated, even if each database provides it (see also global serializability). In practice most commercial database systems use strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL) for concurrency control, which ensures global serializability, if all the participating databases employ it. A common algorithm for ensuring correct completion of a distributed transaction is the two-phase commit (2PC). This algorithm is usually applied for updates able to commit in a short period of time, ranging from couple of milliseconds to couple of minutes. There are also long-lived distributed transactions, for example a transaction to book a trip, which consists of booking a flight, a rental car and a hotel. Since booking the flight might take up to a day to get a confirmation, two-phase commit is not applicable here, it will lock the resources for this long. In this case more sophisticated techniques that involve multiple undo levels are used. The way you can undo the hotel booking by calling a desk and cancelling the reservation, a system can be designed to undo certain operations (unless they are irreversibly finished). In practice, long-lived distributed transactions are implemented in systems based on web services. Usually these transactions utilize principles of compensating transactions, Optimism and Isolation Without Locking. The X/Open standard does not cover long-lived distributed transactions. Several technologies, including Jakarta Enterprise Beans and Microsoft Transaction Server fully support distributed transaction standards. == Synchronization == In event-driven architectures, distributed transactions can be synchronized through using request–response paradigm and it can be implemented in two ways: Creating two separate queues: one for requests and the other for replies. The event producer must wait until it receives the response. Creating one dedicated ephemeral queue for each request.
Pol.is
Polis (or Pol.is) is wiki survey software designed for large group collaborations. As a civic technology, Polis allows people to share their opinions and ideas, and its algorithm is intended to elevate ideas that can facilitate better decision-making, especially when there are lots of participants. Polis has been credited for assisting the passage of legislation in Taiwan. Pol.is has been used by governments in the United States, Canada, Singapore, Philippines, Finland, Spain and elsewhere. == History == Pol.is was founded by Colin Megill, Christopher Small, and Michael Bjorkegren after the Occupy Wall Street and Arab Spring movements. In Taiwan, pol.is has been "one of the key parts" of vTaiwan's suite of open-source tools for its citizen engagement efforts arising out of the Sunflower Student Movement. vTaiwan claims that of the 26 national issues related to technology discussed on the platform, 80% led to government action. Pol.is is also utilized by "Join," a national platform for online deliberation run by the Taiwanese government. In 2022, Wired reported that Polis was an influence on the Community Notes project at Twitter. In 2023, Megill advised OpenAI on how to facilitate deliberation at scale in a way that was more efficient than Polis, which still required significant human labor and analysis at the time. He helped to award $1 million in grants to teams working on solving the problem of deliberation at scale. In 2023, Anthropic was also exploring steering model behavior using Polis. In 2025, it helped the county that includes Bowling Green, Kentucky make a 25 year plan by facilitating the collection and review of ideas from thousands of residents, representing 10% of the county. 2,370 of 3,940 unique ideas were agreed-upon by over 80% of survey respondents. Ideas were screened by volunteers if they were redundant to an existing idea, off-topic or obscene. == How it works == Pol.is participants are anonymous and cannot reply directly to others posts, in an effort to avoid personal attacks for users. Its algorithms are designed not for engagement and scrolling, but to find areas of agreement to better understand the nuances of a wide range of opinions. Participants are prompted for ideas and vote on other participants' ideas. == Reception == Andrew Leonard, The Financial Times, and VentureBeat describe Pol.is as a possible antidote to the divisiveness of traditional internet discourse by gamifying consensus. Audrey Tang agreed saying, "Polis is quite well known in that it's a kind of social media that instead of polarizing people to drive so called engagement or addiction or attention, it automatically drives bridge making narratives and statements. So only the ideas that speak to both sides or to multiple sides will gain prominence in Polis." Niall Ferguson argues that the approach to utilize tools like Pol.is and Join in Taiwan empowers ordinary people instead of the elite and protects individual freedoms, providing a contrast to the AI-enhanced panopticon model seen in China. Carl Miller praised the technology as having "gamified finding consensus." Darshana Narayanan, in an op-ed in the Economist, argues that open-source machine-learning-based tools like Polis can help to bypass the influence of special interests or experts. Jamie Susskind cited polis and vTaiwan as a model for democracies, particularly around digital policy issues.
Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability
Corpus of Linguistic Acceptability (CoLA) is a dataset the primary purpose of which is to serve as a benchmark for evaluating the ability of artificial neural networks, including large language models, to judge the grammatical correctness of sentences. It consists of 10,657 English sentences from published linguistics literature that were manually labeled either as grammatical or ungrammatical. == Public version == The publicly available version of CoLA contains 9,594 sentences that belong to training and development sets. It excludes 1,063 sentences reserved for a held-out test set.
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