Pridgen v University of Calgary was freedom of speech case which took place in Alberta, Canada, in 2010. The case deals with two university students, Keith and Steven Pridgen, who were found guilty and punished by the University of Calgary in 2008, on grounds of "non-academic misconduct". The University of Calgary defines "non-academic misconduct" as:(a) conduct which causes injury to a person and/or damage to University property and/or the property of any member of the University community; (b) unauthorized removal and/or unauthorized possession of University property; and (c) conduct which seriously disrupts the lawful educational and related activities of other students and/or University staff.The Court of the Queen's Bench of Alberta found the University of Calgary to be wrong in prosecuting ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, in regards to comments made about a professor on Facebook. The key ruling in this case was that the universities are not exempt from, and that these students were in fact protected under, section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case is notable as it highlights the jurisdiction of the Charter in terms of both new media technologies and university institutions in Canada. == Background == Keith and Steven Pridgen were undergraduate students at the University of Calgary in 2008. The twin brothers shared a Law and Society class being taught by Aruna Mitra. Professor Mitra was teaching this class for the first time in her career, and many of the students were very critical of her knowledge of the course. A Facebook page entitled “I NO Longer Fear Hell, I Took a Course with Aruna Mitra” was created, and many students began posting comments. In particular, Steven Pridgen's comment on November 13, 2007, read: “Somehow I think she just got lazy and gave everybody a 65....that's what I got. Does anybody know how to apply to have it remarked?” Many students had similar concerns to Pridgen's and after having their work re-marked, a number of them did in fact receive higher grades. Keith Pridgen also commented on August 26, 2008: “Hey fellow LWSO. Homees.. So I am quite sure Mitra is NO LONGER TEACHING ANY COURSES WITH THE U OF C !!!!! Remember when she told us she was a long-term professor? Well, Actually she was only sessional and picked up our class at the last moment because another prof wasn't able to do it ...lucky us. Well, anyways I think we should all congratulate ourselves for leaving a Mitra-free legacy for future students!” On September 4, 2008, Aruna Mitra complained about the Facebook page to the Interim Dean of the Faculty of Communication and Culture at the University of Calgary. Dean Tettey called a meeting for the ten students who posted material about Mitra on the Facebook page. The meeting took place on September 18, 2008, and included four professors from the department as well as the Dean. At this meeting, all ten students, including the Pridgen brothers, were found guilty of non-academic misconduct. On November 20, 2008, the Appellant's received a letter from Dean Tettey advising them that their comments “clearly caused unwarranted professional and personal injury to Prof. Mitra and clearly meets the criteria for non-academic misconduct as outlined in the University of Calgary Calendar”. Keith Pridgen was put on probation for 24 months, and both brothers were required to write a letter of apology to Prof. Mitra and refrain from posting or circulating defamatory material regarding any faculty members of the University of Calgary. The Pridgen brothers appealed the decision to the University of Calgary Review Committee and later to the Board of Governors of the University of Calgary however neither of these attempts succeeded in having the decision overturned. == Opinion of the Court == Eight main issues to be determined were laid out by the Honourable Madam Justice J. Strekaf: (a) Does the Charter apply to the disciplinary proceedings taken by the Respondent; (b) If, so were the Applicants' Charter rights infringed; (c) Were the actions taken by the University ultra vires the jurisdiction of the Province of Alberta; (d) Did the Board of Governors err in refusing to hear the Applicants appeals; (e) Were the Applicants' denied a fair hearing; (f) Did the Review Committee provide adequate reasons for its decisions; (g) Did the Review Committee err in concluding that the activities of the Applicants constituted non-academic misconduct; and (h) What, if any, remedy should be granted to the Applicants. The Court determined from previous cases that "a non-government entity may still be subject to the Charter of Rights and freedoms when implementing a specific government policy or program". Justice Strekaf distinguished that the University was acting as agent of the provincial government in providing accessible post-secondary education services to students in Alberta pursuant to the provisions of the PSL Act. Justice Strekaf felt there was sufficient evidence to show that universities in Alberta have some level of reliance on government funds and therefore they are not a "Charter free zone". Justice Strekaf concluded that comments made by Keith and Steven Pridgen, regarding Professor Mitra, on Facebook did not constitute academic misconduct and the Pridgen brothers' right to freedom of expression, under section 2(b) of the Charter, was infringed by the University of Calgary Review Committee.
Intrapixel and Interpixel processing
Intrapixel and Interpixel processing is used in the processing of computers graphics, as well as sensors and images in equipment such as cameras. For computer graphics, CMOS sensor processing is done in pixel level. This process includes two general categories: intrapixel processing, where the processing is performed on the individual pixel signals, and interpixel processing, where the processing is performed locally or globally on signals from several pixels. The purpose of interpixel processing is to perform early vision processing, not merely to capture images. Intrapixel and Interpixel processing is an integral part of spatial processing within the earth Mixed Spatial Attraction Model. This also includes use within hyperspectral image processing.
Is an AI Text-to-image Tool Worth It in 2026?
Trying to pick the best AI text-to-image tool? An AI text-to-image tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-image tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
The Best Free AI Humanizer for Beginners
Comparing the best AI humanizer? An AI humanizer is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI humanizer slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Below we compare features, pricing, and real output so you can choose with confidence.
Postediting
Post-editing (or postediting) is the process whereby humans amend machine-generated translation to achieve an acceptable final product. A person who post-edits is called a post-editor. The concept of post-editing is linked to that of pre-editing. In the process of translating a text via machine translation, best results may be gained by pre-editing the source text – for example by applying the principles of controlled language – and then post-editing the machine output. It is distinct from editing, which refers to the process of improving human generated text (a process which is often known as revision in the field of translation). Post-edited text may afterwards be revised to ensure the quality of the language choices are proofread to correct simple mistakes. Post-editing involves the correction of machine translation output to ensure that it meets a level of quality negotiated in advance between the client and the post-editor. Light post-editing aims at making the output simply understandable; full post-editing at making it also stylistically appropriate. With advances in machine translation full post-editing is becoming an alternative to manual translation. Practically all computer-assisted translation (CAT) tools now support post-editing of machine translated output. == Post-editing and machine translation == Machine translation left the labs to start being used for its actual purpose in the late seventies at some big institutions such as the European Commission and the Pan-American Health Organization, and then, later, at some corporations such as Caterpillar and General Motors. First studies on post-editing appeared in the eighties, linked to those implementations. To develop appropriate guidelines and training, members of the Association for Machine Translation in the Americas (AMTA) and the European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT) set a Post-editing Special Interest Group in 1999. After the nineties, advances in computer power and connectivity sped machine translation development and allowed for its deployment through the web browser, including as a free, useful adjunct to the main search engines (Google Translate, Bing Translator, Yahoo! Babel Fish). A wider acceptance of less than perfect machine translation was accompanied also by a wider acceptance of post-editing. With the demand for localisation of goods and services growing at a pace that could not be met by human translation, not even assisted by translation memory and other translation management technologies, industry bodies such as the Translation Automation Users Society (TAUS) expect machine translation and post-editing to play a much bigger role within the next few years. The use of Machine Translation suggests sometimes pre-editing. Human translators possess significantly more sophisticated cognitive abilities than machine translation (MT) systems. They leverage a wealth of life experience, common sense, and multi-sensory input to understand context, identify semantic intent, and add cultural nuances to translations. This remains true even as MT capabilities continue to improve. Unlike MT systems, which primarily focus on literal word-for-word conversion, human translators grasp the underlying meaning and intent, even when information is implicit. They "read between the lines," guided by their understanding of the world. Essentially, MT models excel at text string prediction, not true comprehension. Their success often stems from framing problems as prediction tasks, such as in self-driving cars or fraud detection. Studies have demonstrated that integrating adaptive MT with post-editing interfaces can lead to reductions in technical effort and time, improving overall translation efficiency. These systems are also supported by research that highlights the benefits of adaptive MT in real-world translation scenarios. For example, incremental adaptation in Neural Machine Translation (NMT) for professional post-editors has been shown to improve translation quality and reduce time spent on edits, showcasing how human expertise and machine assistance can complement each other effectively. == Light and full post-editing == For many years, no widely accepted, standardized post-editing guidelines existed; however, in 2017, ISO standard 18587:2017: Translation services — Post-editing of machine translation output — Requirements was published. Studies in the eighties distinguished between degrees of post-editing which, in the context of the European Commission Translation Service, were first defined as conventional and rapid or full and rapid. Light and full post-editing seems the wording most used today. Light post-editing implies minimal intervention by the post-editor, with the aim of ensuring quality is "good enough" or "understandable"; the expectation is that the client will use it for inbound purposes only, often when the text is needed urgently, or has a short time span. Full post-editing involves a greater level of intervention to achieve a degree of quality to be negotiated between client and post-editor; the expectation is that the outcome will be a text that is not only understandable but presented in some stylistically appropriate way, so it can be used for assimilation and even for dissemination, for inbound and for outbound purposes. The quality is expected to be publishable and equivalent to that of a human translation. The assumption, however, has been that it takes less effort for translators to work directly from the source text than to post-edit the machine generated version. With advances in machine translation, this may be changing. For some language pairs and for some tasks, and with engines that have been customised with domain specific good quality data, some clients are already requesting translators to post-edit instead of translating from scratch, in the belief that they will attain similar quality at a lower cost. The light/full classification, developed in the nineties when machine translation still came on a CD-ROM, may not suit advances in machine translation at the light post-editing end either. For some language pairs and some tasks, particularly if the source has been pre-edited, raw machine output may be good enough for gisting purposes without requiring subsequent human intervention. == Post-editing efficiency == Post-editing is used when raw machine translation is not good enough and human translation not required. Industry advises post-editing to be used when it can at least double the productivity of manual translation, even fourfold it in the case of light post-editing (1000 words per hour vs. 250 wph). However, post-editing efficiency is difficult to predict. Various studies from both academia and industry have claimed that post-editing is generally faster than translating from scratch, regardless of language pairs or translators' experience. There is, however, no agreement about how much time can be saved through post-editing in practice (if any at all): While the industry reports on time savings around 40%, some academic studies suggest that time savings under actual working conditions are more likely to be between 0–20%, or that it may depend on the terminological proximity between the source and target languages. Professionals have also reported negative productivity gains where corrections require more time than to translate from scratch. == Post-editing and the language industry == After some thirty years, post-editing is still "a nascent profession". What the right profile of the post-editor is, has not yet been fully studied. Post-editing overlaps with translating and editing, but only partially. Most think the ideal post-editor will be a translator keen to be trained on the specific skills required, but there are some who think a bilingual without a background in translation may be easier to train. Not much is known either on who the actual post-editors are, whether they tend to be professional translators, whether they work mostly as in-house employees or self-employed, and on which conditions. Many professional translators dislike post-editing, among other reasons because it tends to be paid at lower rates than conventional translations, with the International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI) having been particularly vocal about it.
Semantic decomposition (natural language processing)
A semantic decomposition is an algorithm that breaks down the meanings of phrases or concepts into less complex concepts. The result of a semantic decomposition is a representation of meaning. This representation can be used for tasks, such as those related to artificial intelligence or machine learning. Semantic decomposition is common in natural language processing applications. The basic idea of a semantic decomposition is taken from the learning skills of adult humans, where words are explained using other words. It is based on Meaning-text theory. Meaning-text theory is used as a theoretical linguistic framework to describe the meaning of concepts with other concepts. == Background == Given that an AI does not inherently have language, it is unable to think about the meanings behind the words of a language. An artificial notion of meaning needs to be created for a strong AI to emerge. Creating an artificial representation of meaning requires the analysis of what meaning is. Many terms are associated with meaning, including semantics, pragmatics, knowledge and understanding or word sense. Each term describes a particular aspect of meaning, and contributes to a multitude of theories explaining what meaning is. These theories need to be analyzed further to develop an artificial notion of meaning best fit for our current state of knowledge. == Graph representations == Representing meaning as a graph is one of the two ways that both an AI cognition and a linguistic researcher think about meaning (connectionist view). Logicians utilize a formal representation of meaning to build upon the idea of symbolic representation, whereas description logics describe languages and the meaning of symbols. This contention between 'neat' and 'scruffy' techniques has been discussed since the 1970s. Research has so far identified semantic measures and with that word-sense disambiguation (WSD) - the differentiation of meaning of words - as the main problem of language understanding. As an AI-complete environment, WSD is a core problem of natural language understanding. AI approaches that use knowledge-given reasoning creates a notion of meaning combining the state of the art knowledge of natural meaning with the symbolic and connectionist formalization of meaning for AI. The abstract approach is shown in Figure. First, a connectionist knowledge representation is created as a semantic network consisting of concepts and their relations to serve as the basis for the representation of meaning. This graph is built out of different knowledge sources like WordNet, Wiktionary, and BabelNET. The graph is created by lexical decomposition that recursively breaks each concept semantically down into a set of semantic primes. The primes are taken from the theory of Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which has been analyzed for usefulness in formal languages. Upon this graph marker passing is used to create the dynamic part of meaning representing thoughts. The marker passing algorithm, where symbolic information is passed along relations form one concept to another, uses node and edge interpretation to guide its markers. The node and edge interpretation model is the symbolic influence of certain concepts. Future work uses the created representation of meaning to build heuristics and evaluate them through capability matching and agent planning, chatbots or other applications of natural language understanding.
Thompson's construction
In computer science, Thompson's construction algorithm, also called the McNaughton–Yamada–Thompson algorithm, is a method of transforming a regular expression into an equivalent nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA). This NFA can be used to match strings against the regular expression. This algorithm is credited to Ken Thompson. Regular expressions and nondeterministic finite automata are two representations of formal languages. For instance, text processing utilities use regular expressions to describe advanced search patterns, but NFAs are better suited for execution on a computer. Hence, this algorithm is of practical interest, since it can compile regular expressions into NFAs. From a theoretical point of view, this algorithm is a part of the proof that they both accept exactly the same languages, that is, the regular languages. An NFA can be made deterministic by the powerset construction and then be minimized to get an optimal automaton corresponding to the given regular expression. However, an NFA may also be interpreted directly. To decide whether two given regular expressions describe the same language, each can be converted into an equivalent minimal deterministic finite automaton via Thompson's construction, powerset construction, and DFA minimization. If, and only if, the resulting automata agree up to renaming of states, the regular expressions' languages agree. == The algorithm == The algorithm works recursively by splitting an expression into its constituent subexpressions, from which the NFA will be constructed using a set of rules. More precisely, from a regular expression E, the obtained automaton A with the transition function Δ respects the following properties: A has exactly one initial state q0, which is not accessible from any other state. That is, for any state q and any letter a, Δ ( q , a ) {\displaystyle \Delta (q,a)} does not contain q0. A has exactly one final state qf, which is not co-accessible from any other state. That is, for any letter a, Δ ( q f , a ) = ∅ {\displaystyle \Delta (q_{f},a)=\emptyset } . Let c be the number of concatenation of the regular expression E and let s be the number of symbols apart from parentheses — that is, |, , a and ε. Then, the number of states of A is 2s − c (linear in the size of E). The number of transitions leaving any state is at most two. Since an NFA of m states and at most e transitions from each state can match a string of length n in time O(emn), a Thompson NFA can do pattern matching in linear time, assuming a fixed-size alphabet. === Rules === The following rules are depicted according to Aho et al. (2007), p. 122. In what follows, N(s) and N(t) are the NFA of the subexpressions s and t, respectively. The empty-expression ε is converted to A symbol a of the input alphabet is converted to The union expression s|t is converted to State q goes via ε either to the initial state of N(s) or N(t). Their final states become intermediate states of the whole NFA and merge via two ε-transitions into the final state of the NFA. The concatenation expression st is converted to The initial state of N(s) is the initial state of the whole NFA. The final state of N(s) becomes the initial state of N(t). The final state of N(t) is the final state of the whole NFA. The Kleene star expression s is converted to An ε-transition connects initial and final state of the NFA with the sub-NFA N(s) in between. Another ε-transition from the inner final to the inner initial state of N(s) allows for repetition of expression s according to the star operator. The parenthesized expression (s) is converted to N(s) itself. With these rules, using the empty expression and symbol rules as base cases, it is possible to prove with structural induction that any regular expression may be converted into an equivalent NFA. == Example == Two examples are now given, a small informal one with the result, and a bigger with a step by step application of the algorithm. === Small Example === The picture below shows the result of Thompson's construction on (ε|ab). The purple oval corresponds to a, the teal oval corresponds to a, the green oval corresponds to b, the orange oval corresponds to ab, and the blue oval corresponds to ε. === Application of the algorithm === As an example, the picture shows the result of Thompson's construction algorithm on the regular expression (0|(1(01(00)0)1)) that denotes the set of binary numbers that are multiples of 3: { ε, "0", "00", "11", "000", "011", "110", "0000", "0011", "0110", "1001", "1100", "1111", "00000", ... }. The upper right part shows the logical structure (syntax tree) of the expression, with "." denoting concatenation (assumed to have variable arity); subexpressions are named a-q for reference purposes. The left part shows the nondeterministic finite automaton resulting from Thompson's algorithm, with the entry and exit state of each subexpression colored in magenta and cyan, respectively. An ε as transition label is omitted for clarity — unlabelled transitions are in fact ε transitions. The entry and exit state corresponding to the root expression q is the start and accept state of the automaton, respectively. The algorithm's steps are as follows: An equivalent minimal deterministic automaton is shown below. == Relation to other algorithms == Thompson's is one of several algorithms for constructing NFAs from regular expressions; an earlier algorithm was given by McNaughton and Yamada. Converse to Thompson's construction, Kleene's algorithm transforms a finite automaton into a regular expression. Glushkov's construction algorithm is similar to Thompson's construction, once the ε-transitions are removed. == Use in string pattern matching == Regular expressions are often used to specify patterns that software is then asked to match. Generating an NFA by Thompson's construction, and using an appropriate algorithm to simulate it, it is possible to create pattern-matching software with performance that is O ( m n ) {\displaystyle O(mn)} , where m is the length of the regular expression and n is the length of the string being matched. This is much better than is achieved by many popular programming-language implementations; however, it is restricted to purely regular expressions and does not support patterns for non-regular languages like backreferences.