Knowledge organization (KO), organization of knowledge, organization of information, or information organization is an intellectual discipline concerned with activities such as document description, indexing, and classification that serve to provide systems of representation and order for knowledge and information objects. According to The Organization of Information by Joudrey and Taylor, information organization: examines the activities carried out and tools used by people who work in places that accumulate information resources (e.g., books, maps, documents, datasets, images) for the use of humankind, both immediately and for posterity. It discusses the processes that are in place to make resources findable, whether someone is searching for a single known item or is browsing through hundreds of resources just hoping to discover something useful. Information organization supports a myriad of information-seeking scenarios. Issues related to knowledge sharing can be said to have been an important part of knowledge management for a long time. Knowledge sharing has received a lot of attention in research and business practice both within and outside organizations and its different levels. Sharing knowledge is not only about giving it to others, but it also includes searching, locating, and absorbing knowledge. Unawareness of the employees' work and duties tends to provoke the repetition of mistakes, the waste of resources, and duplication of the same projects. Motivating co-workers to share their knowledge is called knowledge enabling. It leads to trust among individuals and encourages a more open and proactive relationship that grants the exchange of information easily. Knowledge sharing is part of the three-phase knowledge management process which is a continuous process model. The three parts are knowledge creation, knowledge implementation, and knowledge sharing. The process is continuous, which is why the parts cannot be fully separated. Knowledge creation is the consequence of individuals' minds, interactions, and activities. Developing new ideas and arrangements alludes to the process of knowledge creation. Using the knowledge which is present at the company in the most effective manner stands for the implementation of knowledge. Knowledge sharing, the most essential part of the process for our topic, takes place when two or more people benefit by learning from each other. Traditional human-based approaches performed by librarians, archivists, and subject specialists are increasingly challenged by computational (big data) algorithmic techniques. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge-organizing processes (KOP) (such as taxonomy and ontology) as well as the resulting knowledge organizing systems (KOS). == Theoretical approaches == === Traditional approaches === Among the major figures in the history of KO are Melvil Dewey (1851–1931) and Henry Bliss (1870–1955). Dewey's goal was an efficient way to manage library collections; not an optimal system to support users of libraries. His system was meant to be used in many libraries as a standardized way to manage collections. The first version of this system was created in 1876. An important characteristic in Henry Bliss' (and many contemporary thinkers of KO) was that the sciences tend to reflect the order of Nature and that library classification should reflect the order of knowledge as uncovered by science: The implication is that librarians, in order to classify books, should know about scientific developments. This should also be reflected in their education: Again from the standpoint of the higher education of librarians, the teaching of systems of classification ... would be perhaps better conducted by including courses in the systematic encyclopedia and methodology of all the sciences, that is to say, outlines which try to summarize the most recent results in the relation to one another in which they are now studied together. ... (Ernest Cushing Richardson, quoted from Bliss, 1935, p. 2) Among the other principles, which may be attributed to the traditional approach to KO are: Principle of controlled vocabulary Cutter's rule about specificity Hulme's principle of literary warrant (1911) Principle of organizing from the general to the specific Today, after more than 100 years of research and development in LIS, the "traditional" approach still has a strong position in KO and in many ways its principles still dominate. === Facet analytic approaches === The date of the foundation of this approach may be chosen as the publication of S. R. Ranganathan's colon classification in 1933. The approach has been further developed by, in particular, the British Classification Research Group. The best way to explain this approach is probably to explain its analytico-synthetic methodology. The meaning of the term "analysis" is: breaking down each subject into its basic concepts. The meaning of the term synthesis is: combining the relevant units and concepts to describe the subject matter of the information package in hand. Given subjects (as they appear in, for example, book titles) are first analyzed into a few common categories, which are termed "facets". Ranganathan proposed his PMEST formula: Personality, Matter, Energy, Space and Time: Personality is the distinguishing characteristic of a subject. Matter is the physical material of which a subject may be composed. Energy is any action that occurs with respect to the subject. Space is the geographic component of the location of a subject. Time is the period associated with a subject. === The information retrieval tradition (IR) === Important in the IR-tradition have been, among others, the Cranfield experiments, which were founded in the 1950s, and the TREC experiments (Text Retrieval Conferences) starting in 1992. It was the Cranfield experiments, which introduced the measures "recall" and "precision" as evaluation criteria for systems efficiency. The Cranfield experiments found that classification systems like UDC and facet-analytic systems were less efficient compared to free-text searches or low level indexing systems ("UNITERM"). The Cranfield I test found, according to Ellis (1996, 3–6) the following results: Although these results have been criticized and questioned, the IR-tradition became much more influential while library classification research lost influence. The dominant trend has been to regard only statistical averages. What has largely been neglected is to ask: Are there certain kinds of questions in relation to which other kinds of representation, for example, controlled vocabularies, may improve recall and precision? === User-oriented and cognitive views === The best way to define this approach is probably by method: Systems based upon user-oriented approaches must specify how the design of a system is made on the basis of empirical studies of users. User studies demonstrated very early that users prefer verbal search systems as opposed to systems based on classification notations. This is one example of a principle derived from empirical studies of users. Adherents of classification notations may, of course, still have an argument: That notations are well-defined and that users may miss important information by not considering them. Folksonomies is a recent kind of KO based on users' rather than on librarians' or subject specialists' indexing. === Bibliometric approaches === These approaches are primarily based on using bibliographical references to organize networks of papers, mainly by bibliographic coupling (introduced by Kessler 1963) or co-citation analysis ( independently suggested by Marshakova 1973 and Small 1973). In recent years it has become a popular activity to construe bibliometric maps as structures of research fields. Two considerations are important in considering bibliometric approaches to KO: The level of indexing depth is partly determined by the number of terms assigned to each document. In citation indexing this corresponds to the number of references in a given paper. On the average, scientific papers contain 10–15 references, which provide quite a high level of depth. The references, which function as access points, are provided by the highest subject-expertise: The experts writing in the leading journals. This expertise is much higher than that which library catalogs or bibliographical databases typically are able to draw on. === The domain analytic approach === Domain analysis is a sociological-epistemological standpoint that advocates that the indexing of a given document should reflect the needs of a given group of users or a given ideal purpose. In other words, any description or representation of a given document is more or less suited to the fulfillment of certain tasks. A description is never objective or neutral, and the goal is not to standardize descriptions or make one description once and for all for different target groups. The develo
Digistar
Digistar is the first computer graphics-based planetarium projection and content system. It was designed by Evans & Sutherland and released in 1983. The technology originally focused on accurate and high quality display of stars, including for the first time showing stars from points of view other than Earth's surface, travelling through the stars, and accurately showing celestial bodies from different times in the past and future. Beginning with the Digistar 3 the system now projects full-dome video. == Projector == Unlike modern full-dome systems, which use LCD, DLP, SXRD, or laser projection technology, the Digistar projection system was designed for projecting bright pinpoints of light representing stars. This was accomplished using a calligraphic display, a form of vector graphics, rather than raster graphics. The heart of the Digistar projector is a large cathode-ray tube (CRT). A phosphor plate is mounted atop the tube, and light is then dispersed by a large lens with a 160 degree field of view to cover the planetarium dome. The original lens bore the inscription: "August 1979 mfg. by Lincoln Optical Corp., L.A., CA for Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp., SLC, UT, Digital planetarium CRT projection lens, 43mm, f2.8, 160 degree field of view". The coordinates of the stars and wire-frame models to be displayed by the projector were stored in computer RAM in a display list. The display would read each set of coordinates in turn and drive the CRT's electron beam directly to those coordinates. If the electron beam was enabled while being moved a line would be painted on the phosphor plate. Otherwise, the electron beam would be enabled once at its destination and a star would be painted. Once all coordinates in the display list had been processed, the display would repeat from the top of the display list. Thus, the shorter the display list the more frequently the electron beam would refresh the charge on a given point on the phosphor plate, making the projection of the points brighter. In this way, the stars projected by Digistar were substantially brighter than could be achieved using a raster display, which has to touch every point on the phosphor plate before repeating. Likewise, the calligraphic technology allowed Digistar to have a darker black-level than full-dome projectors, since the portions of the phosphor plate representing dark sky were never hit by the electron beam. As it is only one tube, with no pixelated color filter screen, the Digistar projector is monochromatic. The Digistar projects a bright, phosphorescent green, though many (including both visitors and planetarians) report they cannot distinguish between this green and white. Additionally, unlike a raster display, the calligraphic display is not discretized into pixels, so the displayed stars were a more realistic single spot of light, without the blocky or ropy artifacts that are hard to avoid with raster graphics. Due to the use of vector graphics, as opposed to raster imaging, the Digistar does not have the resolution issues that many full-dome systems have. Thanks to this, and the brightness of the CRT, only one projector is needed to project on the entire dome, whereas most full-dome systems require up to six raster projectors, depending on dome size. The projector in the original Digistar was housed in a square pyramid-shaped sheathing. When powered on, the four sides at the tip of the pyramid would recede into the housing, exposing the lens and appearing as a cut-off pyramid. As Digistar II was being developed, many planetaria were sold Digistar LEA projectors. The LEA, called Digistar 1.5 by many users, was effectively a prototype of the D2 projector, compatible with Digistar and upgradable to Digistar II. There are no significant differences in performance between the LEA and the true D2. == History == Digistar was the brainchild of Stephen McAllister and Brent Watson, both of whom were long-time amateur astronomers and computer graphics engineers. In 1977, E&S had been consulting with Johnson Space Center regarding training simulators for astronauts. McAllister had been writing proof-of-concept software for this consultation and in summer 1977 entered the data for 400 bright stars and wrote the software to display them. Steve and Brent both originally saw the system's purpose as celestial navigation training. Brent, who had until recently worked at Hansen planetarium, asked his planetarium coworkers what they thought of a potential digital planetarium system, and then Steve and Brent both targeted the system toward planetaria. The primary goal of the planetarium system was to use computer graphics to overcome the limitation of traditional star ball technology that only allowed display of star fields from the point of view of Earth's surface. By using computer graphics the stars could be displayed from viewpoints in space, including simulating the appearance of space flight. Likewise, planets and moons within the Solar System could be displayed accurately for any time in history, from any point of view. The system used the location of real stars from the Yale Bright Star Catalogue, as well as random stars. A laboratory prototype of Digistar was used to generate the star fields and tactical displays in the 1982 science fiction film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Filming was done directly from the Digistar display in the lab. ILM projected the effort would take two weeks, but in fact it took from late November 1981 until mid-February 1982. The last shot recorded was what became the first entirely computer generated feature film sequence. It was the opening scene of the film, a rotating forward translation through a star field that lasted 3.5 minutes. It was recorded in one take, at a rate of one frame every 3.5 seconds, taking four hours for the shoot. The Digistar team members are credited in the film. After prototyping in labs at Evans and Sutherland the team repeatedly used Salt Lake City's Hansen planetarium to beta test the system at the planetarium at night. The Digistar team performed one week of shows at the planetarium as a fund raiser to benefit the planetarium. The company also later gave the planetarium an improved prototype Digistar to replace "Jake", the planetarium's aging Spitz planetarium projector. The first customer installation was to the newly constructed Universe Planetarium at the Science Museum of Virginia in 1983, the largest planetarium dome in the world at the time, for $595,000. By September 1986 there were four installed Digistars. Even at this point the long-term success of the product was very much in doubt, but as of 2019 Digistar has an installed base of over 550 planetaria. === Versions === Digistar (1983) Digistar II (1995) Digistar 3 (2002) Digistar 4 (2010?) Digistar 5 (2012) Digistar 6 (2016) Digistar 7 (2021) == Hardware == Digistar was driven by a VAX-11/780 minicomputer, with custom graphics hardware related to the E&S Picture System 2. Later versions of Digistar 1 used a DEC MicroVAX 2, driving a custom version of a PS/300. The original Digistar and Digistar 2 had a physical control panel that was used for running the star shows. This control panel was approximately 3' x 4' and contained a keyboard, a 6 DOF joystick, and a large array of back-lit buttons. One button that was used for moving the viewpoint forward in space was labeled "Boldly Go". Later iterations of Digistar replaced the physical control panel with a common graphical user interface. Digistar 3 was the first Digistar system to offer full-dome video in 2002, using six projectors. Digistar 4 was able to cover the dome using only two projectors. == System limitations == Though technologically advanced in its day, and the closest system to true full-dome video at the time of its release, the original Digistar and Digistar 2 are limited to only projecting dots and lines—meaning only wireframe models can be projected. To compensate for this, the projector is capable of defocusing specific models, blurring lines and dots together. An example of this is in the Digistar 2's built-in Milky Way model. The model is a circle of parallel lines that, when defocused, appear as the continuous band of the Milky Way across the sky. On more complex models, especially three-dimensional ones, brightness and details may be lost in this process, so it is not useful in all situations. The Digistar and Digistar 2 also suffer focus limitations. Because they use a single lens to cover the entire dome, it is difficult to gain perfect focus across the dome. Coupled with this, stars greater than a certain brightness are "multihit" points, meaning the projector draws two dots at the given position to accommodate the brightness of the star. Errors in the projector can lead the second dot to be slightly out-of-place with the first one. These two issues together, along with other issues that can occur within the projector's focus system, give the stars a blobby look. Some p
Teechart
TeeChart is a charting library for programmers, developed and managed by Steema Software of Girona, Catalonia, Spain. It is available as commercial and non-commercial software. TeeChart has been included in most Delphi and C++Builder products since 1997, and TeeChart Standard currently is part of Embarcadero RAD Studio 13 Florence. TeeChart Pro version is a commercial product that offers shareware releases for all of its formats. The TeeChart Charting Library offers charts, maps and gauges in versions for Delphi VCL/FMX, ActiveX, C# for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET. Full source code has always been available for all versions except the ActiveX version. TeeChart's user interface is translated into 38 languages. == History == The first version of TeeChart was authored in 1995 by David Berneda, co-founder of Steema, using the Borland Delphi Visual Component Library programming environment and TeeChart was first released as a shareware version and made available via Compuserve in the same year. It was written in the first version of Delphi VCL, as a 16-bit Charting Library named TeeChart version 1. The next version of TeeChart was released as a 32-bit library (Delphi 2 supported 32-bit compilation) but was badged as TeeChart VCL v3 to coincide with Borland's naming convention for inclusion on the toolbox palette of Borland Delphi v3 in 1997 and with C++ Builder v3 in 1998. It has been on the Delphi/C++ Builder toolbox palette ever since. The current version is Embarcadero RAD Studio 13 Florence. TeeChart's first ActiveX version named "version 3" too, to match the VCL version's nomenclature, was released in 1998. The version was optimised to work with Microsoft's Visual Studio v97 and v6.0 developer suites that include Visual Basic and Microsoft Visual C++ programming languages. Support for new programming environments followed with TeeChart's first native C# version for Microsoft Visual Studio .NET released in 2002 and TeeChart.Lite for .NET, a free charting component, released for Visual Studio.NET in 2003 and supporting too, Mono (programming). Steema Software released the first native TeeChart Java (programming language) version in 2006 and TeeChart's first native PHP version was released in 2009 and published as open-source in June 2010. Mobile versions of TeeChart, for Android (operating system) devices and Windows Phone 7 devices were released during the first half of 2011. In 2012 TeeChart extended functionality to iPhone/iPad and BlackBerry OS devices and a new JavaScript version was released in the same year to support HTML5 Canvas. In 2013 Steema launched TeeChart for .NET Chart for Windows Store applications and included support for Microsoft's Windows Phone 8 mobile platform. TeeChart for Xamarin.Forms written with 100% C# code and cross-platform support for .NET desktops, Windows Phone, iOS and Android was released in 2014. Also since 2014 Webforms charts now offers HTML5 interactivity. Steema launched TeeChart for Avalonia (software framework) in 2022 and in 2023 .NET_MAUI support was added to the TeeChart for .NET. == Usage == TeeChart is a general purpose charting component designed for use in differing ambits, offering a wide range of aesthetics to chart data. Generally TeeCharts published in the field, in areas where large amounts of data must be interpreted regularly, remain by designer choice in their simplest form to maximize the "data-ink ratio". Sloan Digital Sky Survey, SDSS Web Services' use for charting "Scientific .. plotting of online data" at The Virtual Observatory Spectrum Services reflects that approach. The SDSS chart authors choose to represent data using TeeChart's standard 2D line display. Speed is also a factor when choosing how to most effectively plot data. Realtime data, at frequencies of up to tens or hundreds of data points or more per second, require the most processor economic approach to charting. Computer processing time dedicated to the plotting of data needs to be as lightweight as possible, freeing-up computer tasks "to achieve real-time data acquisition, display and analysis". A critical and stated aspect of many data visualisation applications is the ability to offer interactivity to the user; NASA's document, the Orbital Debris Engineering Model Model ORDEM 3.0 - User's Guide, 2014, states that "The user may manipulate the graphs to zoom, pan, and copy to the clipboard and export to various file types" and Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture II, Volume 1, Daoliang, Li; Chunjiang, Zhao (2009), also using TeeChart, states "the properties at any point in the chart can be viewed moving the mouse over it". Writing about control education, Juha Lindfors states "The desired charting functionality (such as zooming and scaling) is achieved..". Charting applications have become increasingly 'onlined', made available either to a wider public or to a territorially remote userbase via networked applications. The World Wide Web (the Web) has become "by far, the most popular Internet protocol" to disseminate online applications. Most major IDEs now offer environments for web application developede aimed at browser hosted applications. Charting components, TeeChart among them, have adapted to provide models that work within a browser environment, often using static images and scripted layering techniques such as Ajax (programming) to offer a level of interactivity, improve response times and hide apparent delay from the user. Options to enrich client, browser-side processing flexibility are exploited by TeeChart libraries via modules that offer 'micro-environments' within the browser, such as the long established ActiveX technology, Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight or Java Applets. Serverside environments offer too, a means to interact with browser based script to dynamically respond to charting requests. Joomla and CodeIgniter are host environments for TeeChart PHP and an example of an Embarcadero IntraWeb VCL designed application using TeeChart, is documented here. == Programmer reference == The Code Project includes a demo that uses TeeChart.Lite, called 'Self-Organizing Feature Maps (Kohonen maps)' written by Bashir Magomedovl and SourceForge includes a Database Stress and Monitor that also uses TeeChart.Lite. Books and information sources that include substantial sections about working with the Delphi version of TeeChart include "Mastering Delphi 6" by Marco Cantù, "C++ Builder 5 developer's guide", a video Delphi Tutorial on charting JPEG compression and support forums and reference pages at TeeChart Support Forums. Non-English language document sources include, in Czech "Myslíme v jazyku Delphi 7: knihovna zkušeného programátora" by Marco Cantù, and Chinese, Delphi 6, Delphi, and Delphi 5.
Color image pipeline
An image pipeline or video pipeline is the set of components commonly used between an image source (such as a camera, a scanner, or the rendering engine in a computer game), and an image renderer (such as a television set, a computer screen, a computer printer or cinema screen), or for performing any intermediate digital image processing consisting of two or more separate processing blocks. An image/video pipeline may be implemented as computer software, in a digital signal processor, on an FPGA, or as fixed-function ASIC. In addition, analog circuits can be used to do many of the same functions. Typical components include image sensor corrections (including debayering or applying a Bayer filter), noise reduction, image scaling, gamma correction, image enhancement, colorspace conversion (between formats such as RGB, YUV or YCbCr), chroma subsampling, framerate conversion, image compression/video compression (such as JPEG), and computer data storage/data transmission. Typical goals of an imaging pipeline may be perceptually pleasing end-results, colorimetric precision, a high degree of flexibility, low cost/low CPU utilization/long battery life, or reduction in bandwidth/file size. Some functions may be algorithmically linear. Mathematically, those elements can be connected in any order without changing the end-result. As digital computers use a finite approximation to numerical computing, this is in practice not true. Other elements may be non-linear or time-variant. For both cases, there is often one or a few sequences of components that makes sense for optimum precision and minimum hardware-cost/CPU-load.
Networked Help Desk
Networked Help Desk is an open standard initiative to provide a common API for sharing customer support tickets between separate instances of issue tracking, bug tracking, customer relationship management (CRM) and project management systems to improve customer service and reduce vendor lock-in. The initiative was created by Zendesk in June 2011 in collaboration with eight other founding member organizations including Atlassian, New Relic, OTRS, Pivotal Tracker, ServiceNow and SugarCRM. The first integration, between Zendesk and Atlassian's issue tracking product, Jira, was announced at the 2011 Atlassian Summit. By August 2011, 34 member companies had joined the initiative. A year after launching, over 50 organizations had joined. Within Zendesk instances this feature is branded as ticket sharing. == Basis == Support tools are generally built around a common paradigm that begins with a customer making a request or an incident report, these create a ticket. Each ticket has a progress status and is updated with annotations and attachments. These annotations and attachments may be visible to the customer (public), or only visible to analysts (private). Customers are notified of progress made on their ticket until it is complete. If the people necessary to complete a ticket are using separate support tools, additional overhead is introduced in maintaining the relevant information in the ticket in each tool while notifying the customer of progress made by each group in completing their ticket. For example, if a customer support issue is caused by a software bug and reported to a help desk using one system, and then the fix is documented by the developers in another, and analyzed in a customer relationship management tool, keeping the records in each system up-to-date and notifying the customer manually using a swivel chair approach is unnecessarily time-consuming and error-prone. If information is not transferred correctly, a customer may have to re-explain their problem each time their ticket is transferred. For systems with the Networked Help Desk API implemented, it is possible for several different applications related to a customer's support experience to synchronize data in one uniquely identified shared ticket. While many applications in these domains have implemented APIs that allow data to be imported, exported and modified, Network Help Desk provide a common standard for customer support information to automatically synchronize between several systems. Once implemented, two systems can quickly share tickets with just a configuration change as they both understand the same interface. Communication between two instances on a specific ticket occurs in three steps, an invitation agreement, sharing of ticket data and continued synchronization of tickets. The standard allows for "full delegation" (analysts in both systems each make public and private comments and synchronize status) as well as "partial delegation" where the instance receiving the ticket can only make private comments and status changes are not synchronized. Tickets may be shared with multiple instances. == Implementation list ==
Sentence embedding
In natural language processing, a sentence embedding is a representation of a sentence as a vector of numbers which encodes meaningful semantic information. State of the art embeddings are based on the learned hidden layer representation of dedicated sentence transformer models. BERT pioneered an approach involving the use of a dedicated [CLS] token prepended to the beginning of each sentence inputted into the model; the final hidden state vector of this token encodes information about the sentence and can be fine-tuned for use in sentence classification tasks. In practice however, BERT's sentence embedding with the [CLS] token achieves poor performance, often worse than simply averaging non-contextual word embeddings. SBERT later achieved superior sentence embedding performance by fine tuning BERT's [CLS] token embeddings through the usage of a siamese neural network architecture on the SNLI dataset. Other approaches are loosely based on the idea of distributional semantics applied to sentences. Skip-Thought trains an encoder-decoder structure for the task of neighboring sentences predictions; this has been shown to achieve worse performance than approaches such as InferSent or SBERT. An alternative direction is to aggregate word embeddings, such as those returned by Word2vec, into sentence embeddings. The most straightforward approach is to simply compute the average of word vectors, known as continuous bag-of-words (CBOW). However, more elaborate solutions based on word vector quantization have also been proposed. One such approach is the vector of locally aggregated word embeddings (VLAWE), which demonstrated performance improvements in downstream text classification tasks. == Applications == In recent years, sentence embedding has seen a growing level of interest due to its applications in natural language queryable knowledge bases through the usage of vector indexing for semantic search. LangChain for instance utilizes sentence transformers for purposes of indexing documents. In particular, an indexing is generated by generating embeddings for chunks of documents and storing (document chunk, embedding) tuples. Then given a query in natural language, the embedding for the query can be generated. A top k similarity search algorithm is then used between the query embedding and the document chunk embeddings to retrieve the most relevant document chunks as context information for question answering tasks. This approach is also known formally as retrieval-augmented generation. Though not as predominant as BERTScore, sentence embeddings are commonly used for sentence similarity evaluation which sees common use for the task of optimizing a Large language model's generation parameters is often performed via comparing candidate sentences against reference sentences. By using the cosine-similarity of the sentence embeddings of candidate and reference sentences as the evaluation function, a grid-search algorithm can be utilized to automate hyperparameter optimization. == Evaluation == A way of testing sentence encodings is to apply them on Sentences Involving Compositional Knowledge (SICK) corpus for both entailment (SICK-E) and relatedness (SICK-R). In the best results are obtained using a BiLSTM network trained on the Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) Corpus. The Pearson correlation coefficient for SICK-R is 0.885 and the result for SICK-E is 86.3. A slight improvement over previous scores is presented in: SICK-R: 0.888 and SICK-E: 87.8 using a concatenation of bidirectional Gated recurrent unit.
Dave's Redistricting
Dave's Redistricting App (DRA) is an online web app originally created by Dave Bradlee that allows anyone to simulate redistricting a U.S. state's congressional and legislative districts. == Purpose == According to Bradlee, the software was designed to "put power in people's hands," and so that they "can see how the process works, so it's a little less mysterious than it was 10 years ago." Bradlee has noticed that many citizens are taking this process seriously and using his app to create legitimate redistricting maps that could be put in place. Some websites have called Bradlee the pioneer and cause of the rise of do-it-yourself redistricting. States such as Montana in 2021 allowed the general population to use it to submit redistricting proposals following the 2020 United States Census. Dave's Redistricting has frequently been mentioned as a resource that can be used to combat gerrymandering, given that the public has free access to it. Political science firms such as FiveThirtyEight have used the website to draw examples of gerrymandered districts, including on their famous Atlas of Redistricting. Dave Bradlee built the first generation of DRA. DRA 2020 is built by a small team of volunteers—Dave Bradlee, Terry Crowley, Alec Ramsay, and David Rinn—all with a shared passion for technology & democracy and all Microsoft veterans. Their mission is to empower civic organizations and citizen activists to advocate for fair congressional and legislative districts and increased transparency in the redistricting process. == Functions == Users can redraw the congressional and state legislative districts for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico using a variety of census and election datasets including Cook PVI. Maps can be optimized for different criteria. DRA 2020 added several major features to the first generation app: Sharing & collaborative editing of maps, like Google Docs Multiple statewide elections for all 50 states including the ability to import your own data Comprehensive analytics for evaluating and comparing maps Custom overlays, and Block-level editing DRA remains free to use. == Versions == 2.2: This uses Bing Maps, an outdated software that projects the districts of a single state onto a map of the United States. 2.5: After Bing Maps announced that it would no longer be updating for the foreseen future, the U.S. Map feature was removed. DRA 2020: At the end of 2018, a beta version of 2020 was released. This version that did not require Microsoft Silverlight and could be used in any web browser. DRA 2020 has been under continuous development since and is built using React (JavaScript library), Mapbox, OpenStreetMap, TypeScript, Node.js, Amazon Web Services, as well as many open source components, tools, and icons.