64 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2024
    1. david ray griffin has an amazing capacity uh to immerse himself 00:26:26 in um the the work of other philosophers and scientists that he thinks might be in some way connected to whitehead and then to engage with them to unpack those connections

      for - David Ray Griffin - followup - David Ray Griffin

      followup - David Ray Griffin - https://hyp.is/go?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdocdrop.org%2Fvideo%2F6uXvJAtoCiQ%2F&group=world

  2. Dec 2022
  3. Aug 2022
  4. Apr 2022
    1. Connected Papers uses the publicly available corpus compiled by Semantic Scholar — a tool set up in 2015 by the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Seattle, Washington — amounting to around 200 million articles, including preprints.

      Semantic Scholar is a digital tool created by the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Seattle, Washington in 2015. It's corpus is publicly available for search and is used by other tools including Connected Papers.

    2. Google Scholar does not disclose the size of its database, but it is widely acknowledged to be the biggest corpus in existence, with close to 400 million articles by one estimate (M. Gusenbauer Scientometrics 118, 177–214; 2019).

      Google Scholar was estimated to cover 400 million articles in 2019. It's acknowledged to be the largest research corpus, but the company doesn't publicly publish the size of its database.

    3. Besides published articles, Google Scholar might also pick up preprints as well as “low-quality theses and dissertations”, Tay says. Even so, “you get some gems you might not have seen”, he says. (Scopus, a competing literature database maintained by the Amsterdam-based publisher Elsevier, began incorporating preprints earlier this year, a spokesperson says. But it does not index theses and dissertations. “There will be titles that do not meet the Scopus standards but are covered by Google Scholar,” he says.)

      Scopus primarily covers regularly published journals with ISSN numbers and began including preprints in 2021, while Google Scholar has a broader net that also includes theses, dissertations, preprints, and books.

    4. Aaron Tay, a librarian at Singapore Management University who studies academic search tools, gets literature recommendations from both Twitter and Google Scholar, and finds that the latter often highlights the same articles as his human colleagues, albeit a few days later. Google Scholar “is almost always on target”, he says.

      Anecdotal evidence indicates that manual human curation as evinced by Twitter front runs Google Scholar by a few days.

  5. Oct 2021
  6. Aug 2021
  7. Apr 2021
    1. 7:09 - Discussion of a custom template for use cases; this sounds a bit like some customization similar to Open Scholar on Drupal

      Here's a link to Alan Levine's work here: https://cogdogblog.com/category/twu-portfolios/

      What has support for WPMU looked like within the pandemic?

      Laurie Miles, UNC Asheville

      • Uptick with faculty looking for tools to be online. They've gone from 6 or 7 in past years to 17
      • Sharing resources with colleagues within the department or at other institutions

      Shannon Hauser, University of Mary Washington

      • They've seen a disconnect between their LMS (Canvas) and Domains with the LMS winning out

      Colin Madland, Trinity Western University

      • Didn't have a culture of online teaching
      • Fine arts department started tinkering and others within the department are using that template. They spent some time and thought in the Summer and that made it easier for them in the fall.

      Jim Groom talked about a "motherblog" (a planet made via RSS). How can we center the idea of a webmention hub to do this?

      There was a lot of reversion to what was comfortable in the move to all online pedagogy. Professors were comfortable with lectures, so they stuck with that. There wasn't an emphasis on actual learning.

      I should note Glenn Zucman's art work to Colin to pass along to their art department. There could be a community of use cases that might help each other experiment and expand on their ideas.

  8. Mar 2021
  9. Apr 2020
  10. Mar 2019
    1. You are quite elated by this freedom to juggle the record of your thoughts, and by the way this freedom allows you to work them into shape. You reflected that this flexible cut-and-try process really did appear to match the way you seemed to develop your thoughts

      Cut-and-try process sounds so much less technical than copy/paste. It sounds friendly like mistakes and learning are allowed, and like curiosity and making art. I know everybody loves it, when they first find out about copy/paste, but I wonder if such a little change in language could shift perception from just being able to rearrange and fix mistakes to what I think Engelbart might have intended here: people becoming aware of the process of their own thinking as a form of sculpting. It might unconsciously relax a lot of people who feel anxiety about expressing themselves?

  11. Feb 2019
    1. He claimed that he could comfortably rattle off about 180 words a minute—faster than he could comfortably talk.

      That's funny, because would't that mean to also think in these abbreviations? Because I usually even if I don't say them aloud "voice" my thoughts at least inside my head. Not sure I am that much of a fan of speed and efficiency to give up wanting to think in words and sentences.

      "A typical shorthand system provides symbols or abbreviations for words and common phrases, which can allow someone well-trained in the system to write as quickly as people speak." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorthand

      The other thing is even with today's voice capture and dictation systems ( if they work without hiccups) still, isn't the essential part that makes anything worth reading afterwards the pretty slow procedure of editing? I guess I don't think the real challenge with augmenting human intellect is speed.

    2. It is rather amazing how much superfluous verbiage is contained in those papers merely to try to make up for the pitifully sparse possibilities available for symbol structuring in printed text."

      No argument here. :)

    3. The inheritance from the master becomes, not only his additions to the world's record, but for his disciples the entire scaffolding by which they were erected.

      the entire scaffolding... Like being able to look inside their brains and how it works. I know that for me the greatest teachers have always been the ones, who were able to explain to me how they think. The ones who not only told me why they reached their conclusions, but how they got there. I'd love this.

    4. There is a new profession of trail blazers, those who find delight in the task of establishing useful trails through the enormous mass of the common record.

      Wouldn’t that be grand!  Finally an attractive job description for people, who are great at following and gathering information and by linking it, creating new knowledge. Even though they might not be able to summarise this new found knowledge in their own words?

       But unlike curators today, they could be freed of having to meet a popular taste. The more obscure and unknown the trails, the better.  Trails that could be used by others to make them their own.  

      Don’t know if anyone will get this detour:  But do you remember Soulseek? It used to be a network to share music. Yes, it probably wasn’t really legal. But it was awesome. You opened up the folder with your music collection on your computer to others, who likewise granted access to theirs. I absolutely loved it.  Never again did I have access to such wealth of interesting new music, because what you get was truly individual taste. I used to search for not well known artist I loved, and then in the libaries of others, who loved this artist too, I found more likewise obscure but beautiful music.  It was fantastic.

       Trust me, Spotify is not the same.

      (Just checked, Soulseek still exists. But they updated their terms quite a bit..or... I never read them before. Everybody I knew was using it like I described. I think I might have stopped using it after moving back to Germany from Argentina years ago, where copyright wasn't such a big deal. One of the reasons, I am sure, it was Argentina, where I learned what amazing things the web could be used for.)

    5. And his trails do not fade.

       I love the image of trails.  

      When I research a topic on the web, I often feel like an adventurer exploring a wilderness of articles and pages as I keep on “walking” and finding my way.

      And oh, how I wish I had a memex!

      A memex to keep track of all the treasures I find and to build a map of what I would like to remember and to be able to find again.

      I’ve tried what seems like everything. I used bookmarks and all kinds of tools to organize bookmarks. I even had a blog for years, where I used to post everything that seemed worth keeping. Adding my thoughts, or just to save it, because I knew it would be helpful with something else, some other time. But I lost so many things.

      My mind definitely works by association. Often I remember something suddenly, a connection that for others might seem to not even fit the topic. I would love to find the link, I know I saw somewhere. Find it for myself, because my brain, just told me, it wants to enter that thought trail. But besides, often, because I would like to make this ‘LINK’ understandable to others too, and I might not remember or be able to express, what exactly excites me about it. Other sometimes it’s just that this link contained facts I would need to make my point in an argument. 

      But while my mind loves to associate and making links, it is not good at all at remembering names. So the search box often is of no help. And even searching on that long gone blog (or Evernote today) stops being all too useful after one passed the number of a couple hundred posts. The reason is, I struggle with indexing and tagging in a useful way. Trails I keep in “notebooks” on Evernote but associations and linking trails, I guess, would have to be accessed trough a organized use of tags somehow.  And I never figured out how to do that right. 

      But I believe if I had a memex and everything would be stored and never lost, I wouldn’t give up hope to find it. I’d keep digging because I know it’s there. And probably the memex could help me with the tagging too? Learning from how my brain works? 

      I get sad when I think how much time I spend trying to organize bookmarks and links in all those apps and tools that don’t even exist anymore. Or I remember giving up on MOOCs after learning that all the knowledge we students gathered in the forum of a course was deleted, with the argument given that new students would be able to cheat…

       I get even sadder when I think, that all this trailing seems to be possible already, but all it is used for is surveillance and making money.

    6. These are only a few of the total, I'm sure

      As an educator, it's encouraging - in an odd sort of way - that formal schooling, the work of teaching, and (especially) K12 learning was not mentioned in this list given dominant narratives about technology replacing/improving the practices of teaching and learning.

    7. such that computer processes based upon these rules can be said to extract meaning from these statements and to do operations based upon this meaning.

      Given both recent research and highly publicized corporate missteps, is it not prudent to ask: What role does human bias play in designing the computer processes that extract meaning and perform operations?

    8. if you were being given a personal discussion-demonstration by a friendly fellow (named Joe)

      I thought it might be useful, at the outset of this section, to inquire about Engelbart's choices as an author. I'm struck by his decision to craft this expository and hypothetical description, to provide us readers with another set of entry points and scaffolds to better understand his prior arguments. Though the style and tenor is quite different, I'm reminded of Bernard Suits' book The Grasshopper that relied upon dialogue and extended analogy to rebut Wittgenstein's claims of "family resemblances." In any case, perhaps I'm most curious about unpacking authorial motivation and decision-making, for this section differs in so many ways from more conventional technical reports, literature reviews, or surveys of theory. This section may not have been necessary, but - presumably - it was included because it accomplished something the previous sections were unable to capture? Or is this "merely" for the purposes of exposition?

    9. maintain stoutly that a practical augmentation system should not require the human to have to do any computer programming—they feel that this is too specialized a capability to burden people with

      Jon Udell's conversation with Gardner Campbell touches upon this point, around minute 11. https://youtu.be/-lClojNraK4

    10. we very rarely go back to it in its original form

      I'm reminded of the Annotation for Transparent Inquiry project that is part of the Qualitative Data Repository.

    11. something like footnotes, only much more flexible

      Something, perhaps, like open annotation?

    12. Let us use what we call 'antecedent links'
    13. 'What's this?', 'How come?', and 'So what?'

      Oh, it's a dissertation defense.

    14. Golly, you could be writing math expressions, ad copy, or a poem, with the same type of benefit.

      Coming to this observation, as I read more deeply into this narrative, I'm curious about the generative tension between text (n) and text (v). How have others perceived, and perhaps also contributed to, the augmentation of text (n/v) - in terms of composition, editing, visualization...

    15. The writing machine and its flexible copying capability would occupy you for a long time if you tried to exhaust the reverberating chain of associated possibilities for making useful innovations within your capability hierarchy.

      I wonder and doubt that school children, when they are introduced to word processors, often get invited to grasp and start exploring the possibilities of the capability expanding writing machine.  

      I left school in Germany 1995 and till then had never written anything on a computer. But when I finally did, I still felt ashamed about my “messy” writing/thinking process. A process, which transformed from countless notes and rewrites of scratched out text on paper to having many digital documents open at the same time and copying and pasting like crazy. Not only my own writing but gathering text and ideas from others to help me with my own thoughts and how to express what I want to say.

      At least in Germany, we still tell children that knowledge is worthless, if it’s not stored in your own head. We make them believe that the important part of using your intellect, is not about using knowledge and making new connections, but about “being original.” While, on the other hand, learning is represented as just being good at memorising facts. That’s why, till today, one of the biggest concerns is plagiarism. I was told that even without an assignment being an official test, kids still sometimes are prohibited to make use of wikipedia. This idea about knowledge is also reflected in that people often take it as a cue to dismiss your reasoning as unfounded, when (to back up an argument) you take out your phone to search for facts, you know about but can’t recollect.

      (Of course in Germany young people are often seen as not being able to think for themselves at all - one example is the recent attack on Greta Thunberg and the #FridaysForFuture protesters by Angela Merkel, who insinuated them being marionettes controlled by “external influence”  https://twitter.com/jdoeschner/status/1097089168365228032 ).   

      This article argues that a digitalisation of German schools is too expensive, will only make children play games and chat during lessons and is therefore unnecessary… It’s from 2018.

      “The claim that smartphones in the hands of children and adolescents are primarily instruments of the knowledge society is adventurous.” (*smart phones because since nobody wants to pay for computers in schools “the solution” proposed by the school minister of North Rhine Westphalia is that school children should bring their own devices) https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/digitalisierung-der-schule-grosser-unfug-15519960.html

      We sadly seem to be extremely far away from even imagining collectively augmenting human intellect.

    16. II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

      Here's the beginning of the first excerpt we're focusing on for Week 2: Section II, parts A & B.

      The second excerpt is below, Section III, Part A, subsections 1 and 2.

      We are focusing on specific excerpts to make this lengthy document a little more manageable for this iteration of the project. That said, you are of course welcome and encouraged to annotate any part of the document you find noteworthy.

    17. III. EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION

      This is the beginning of the second excerpt we're focusing on in Week 2 of the Engelbart Framework Annotation Project, This second excerpt comprises Section III, part A, subsections 1 and 2. Engelbart tells his readers early in this report that Section II often proves very difficult at first reading, and advises those who find Section III tough going to head to Section III, read it, and then go back to Section II.

      Section III also includes the "Joe" section, the "fiction-dialogue" as Engelbart calls it. This section will be our focus in Week 3.

    18. the H-LAM/T system's repertoire hierarchy.

      These words mark the end of the first excerpt we're focusing on during Week 2 of the first iteration of the Engelbart Framework Project.

      We'll focus on the rest of Section II, probably the hardest section of the document to understand readily, in a subsequent iteration. As always, you're welcome and encouraged to annotate you find noteworthy in any part of the document.

    19. In amplifying our intelligence, we are applying the principle of synergistic structuring that was followed by natural evolution in developing the basic human capabilities. What we have done in the development of our augmentation means is to construct a superstructure that is a synthetic extension of the natural structure upon which it is built. In a very real sense, as represented by the steady evolution of our augmentation means, the development of "artificial intelligence" has been going on for centuries.

      Engelbart explicitly noted that what he was trying to do was not just hack culture, which is what significant innovations accomplish, but to hack the process by which biological and cultural co-evolution has bootstrapped itself to this point. Culture used the capabilities provided by biological evolution -- language, thumbs, etc. -- to improve human ways of living much faster than biological evolution can do, by not just inventing, but passing along to each other and future generations the knowledge of what was invented and how to invent. Engelbart proposes an audio-visual-tactile interface to computing as a tool for consciously accelerating the scope and power of individual and collective intelligence.

    20. For instance, an aborigine who possesses all of our basic sensory-mental-motor capabilities, but does not possess our background of indirect knowledge and procedure, cannot organize the proper direct actions necessary to drive a car through traffic, request a book from the library, call a committee meeting to discuss a tentative plan, call someone on the telephone, or compose a letter on the typewriter.

      In other words: culture. I'm pretty sure that Engelbart would agree with the statement that someone who could order a book from a library would likely not know the best way to find a nearby water source, as the right kind of aborigine would know. Collective intelligence is a monotonically increasing store of knowledge that is maintained through social learning -- not just social learning, but teaching. Many species engage in social learning, but humans are the only primates with visible sclera -- the whites of our eyeballs -- which enables even infants to track where their teacher/parent is looking. I think this function of culture is what Engelbart would call "C work"

      A Activity: 'Business as Usual'. The organization's day to day core business activity, such as customer engagement and support, product development, R&D, marketing, sales, accounting, legal, manufacturing (if any), etc. Examples: Aerospace - all the activities involved in producing a plane; Congress - passing legislation; Medicine - researching a cure for disease; Education - teaching and mentoring students; Professional Societies - advancing a field or discipline; Initiatives or Nonprofits - advancing a cause.
      
      B Activity: Improving how we do that. Improving how A work is done, asking 'How can we do this better?' Examples: adopting a new tool(s) or technique(s) for how we go about working together, pursuing leads, conducting research, designing, planning, understanding the customer, coordinating efforts, tracking issues, managing budgets, delivering internal services. Could be an individual introducing a new technique gleaned from reading, conferences, or networking with peers, or an internal initiative tasked with improving core capability within or across various A Activities.
      
      C Activity: Improving how we improve. Improving how B work is done, asking 'How can we improve the way we improve?' Examples: improving effectiveness of B Activity teams in how they foster relations with their A Activity customers, collaborate to identify needs and opportunities, research, innovate, and implement available solutions, incorporate input, feedback, and lessons learned, run pilot projects, etc. Could be a B Activity individual learning about new techniques for innovation teams (reading, conferences, networking), or an initiative, innovation team or improvement community engaging with B Activity and other key stakeholders to implement new/improved capability for one or more B activities.
      

      In other words, human culture, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training, bootstrapped collective intelligence; what Engelbart proposed, then was to apply C work to culture's bootstrapping capabilities.

    21. However, the computer has many other capabilities for manipulating and displaying information that can be of significant benefit to the human in nonmathematical processes of planning, organizing, studying, etc. Every person who does his thinking with symbolized concepts (whether in the form of the English language, pictographs, formal logic, or mathematics) should be able to benefit significantly.

      Rich representations -- besides computational power -- are absolutely key for the described scenario.

      This description, written half a century ago, is more or less realized. It reminded me of the Microsoft Vision 2019 created around 2009 that is yet to be realized.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2PMbvVGS-o

    22. the complexity of his problems grows still faster, and the urgency with which solutions must be found becomes steadily greater in response to the increased rate of activity and the increasingly global nature of that activity.

      A situation characterized as The Ingenuity Gap by Homer-Dixon.

    23. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human "feel for a situation" usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.

      I appreciate the recognition of both the "arts" and "science" of problem solving.

    24. We do not speak of isolated clever tricks that help in particular situations. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human "feel for a situation" usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.

      To get to this moment in the document, Engelbart had struggled past many requests for just such clever tricks. People around him imagined that computing would make this thing faster, that thing more comprehensive, that other thing more automatic. What people couldn't imagine was that computing could, if understood and used wisely, lead to a way of life in an integrated domain that could be more mindful and potentially more humane. A human-computer symbiosis that could be a greater force for good than we had yet seen. And sometimes that is indeed what has happened. And sometimes, spectacularly, not.

      Nowadays, with deep digital and network literacies apparently on the decline, it seems that surveillance capitalism has become a nightmare inversion of the integrated domain. While most of us live our fragmented digital lives full of clever tricks that help in particular situations, sinister people who think largely about integrated domains engineer our entrapments, not the liberations Engelbart envisions here.

      All the more reason to rewind to 1962 and read this remarkable document together.

    25. Our culture has evolved means for us to organize the little things we can do with our basic capabilities so that we can derive comprehension from truly complex situations, and accomplish the processes of deriving and implementing problem solutions. The ways in which human capabilities are thus extended are here called augmentation means, and we define four basic classes of them: 2a4 Artifacts—physical objects designed to provide for human comfort, for the manipulation of things or materials, and for the manipulation of symbols.2a4a Language—the way in which the individual parcels out the picture of his world into the concepts that his mind uses to model that world, and the symbols that he attaches to those concepts and uses in consciously manipulating the concepts ("thinking"). 2a4b Methodology—the methods, procedures, strategies, etc., with which an individual organizes his goal-centered (problem-solving) activity. 2a4c Training—the conditioning needed by the human being to bring his skills in using Means 1, 2, and 3 to the point where they are operationally effective. 2a4d The system we want to improve can thus be visualized as a trained human being together with his artifacts, language, and methodology. The explicit new system we contemplate will involve as artifacts computers, and computer-controlled information-storage, information-handling, and information-display devices. The aspects of the conceptual framework that are discussed here are primarily those relating to the human being's ability to make significant use of such equipment in an integrated system.

      To me, this is the most prescient of Engelbart's future visions, and the seed for future study of culture-technology co-evolution. I talked with Engelbart about this passage over the years and we agreed that although the power of the artifacts, from RAM to CPU speed to network bandwidth, had improved by the billionfold since 1962, the "softer" parts of the formula -- the language, methodology, and training -- have not advanced so much. Certainly language, training methods and pedagogy, and collaborative strategies have evolved with the growth and spread of digital media, but are still lagging. H/LAMT interests me even more today than it did thirty years ago because Engelbart unknowingly forecast the fundamental elements of what has come to be called cultural-biological co-evolution. I gave a TED talk in 2005, calling for an interdisciplinary study of human cooperation -- and obstacles to cooperation. It seems that in recent years an interdisciplinary understanding has begun to emerge. Joseph Henrich at Harvard, for one, in his recent book, The Secret of Our Success, noted:

      Drawing insights from lost European Explorers, clever chimpanzees, hunter-gatherers, cultural neuroscience, ancient bones and the human genome, Henrich shows that it’s not our general intelligence, innate brain power, or specialized mental abilities that explain our success. Instead, it’s our collective brains, which arise from a combination of our ability to learn selectively from each and our sociality. Our collective brains, which often operate outside of any individual’s conscious awareness, gradually produce increasingly complex, nuanced and subtle technological, linguistic and social products over generations.

      Tracking this back into the mist of our evolutionary past, and to the remote corners of the globe, Henrich shows how this non-genetic system of cultural inheritance has long driven human genetic evolution. By producing fire, cooking, water containers, tracking know-how, plant knowledge, words, hunting strategies and projectiles, culture-driven genetic evolution expanded our brains, shaped our anatomy and physiology, and influenced our psychology, making us into the world’s only living cultural species. Only by understanding cultural evolution, can we understand human genetic evolution.

      Henrich, Boyd, and RIcherson wrote, about the social fundamentals that distinguish human culture's methods of evolving collective intelligence in The Origin and Evolution of Culture:

      Surely, without punishment, language, technology, individual intelligence and inventiveness, ready establishment of reciprocal arrangements, prestige systems and solutions to games of coordination, our societies would take on a distinctly different cast. Thus, a major constraint on explanations of human sociality is its systemic structure

    1. The writing machine and its flexible copying capability would occupy you for a long time if you tried to exhaust the reverberating chain of associated possibilities for making useful innovations within your capability hierarchy.

      I wonder and doubt that school children, when they are introduced to word processors, often get invited to grasp and start exploring the possibilities of the capability expanding writing machine.  

      I left school in Germany 1995 and till then had never written anything on a computer. But when I finally did, I still felt ashamed about my “messy” writing/thinking process. A process, which transformed from countless notes and rewrites of scratched out text on paper to having many digital documents open at the same time and copying and pasting like crazy. Not only my own writing but gathering text and ideas from others to help me with my own thoughts and how to express what I want to say.

      At least in Germany, we still tell children that knowledge is worthless, if it’s not stored in your own head. We make them believe that the important part of using your intellect, is not about using knowledge and making new connections, but about “being original.” While, on the other hand, learning is represented as just being good at memorising facts. That’s why, till today, one of the biggest concerns is plagiarism. I was told that even without an assignment being an official test, kids still sometimes are prohibited to make use of wikipedia. This idea about knowledge is also reflected in that people often take it as a cue to dismiss your reasoning as unfounded, when (to back up an argument) you take out your phone to search for facts, you know about but can’t recollect.

      (Of course in Germany young people are often seen as not being able to think for themselves at all - one example is the recent attack on Greta Thunberg and the #FridaysForFuture protesters by Angela Merkel, who insinuated them being marionettes controlled by “external influence”  https://twitter.com/jdoeschner/status/1097089168365228032 ).   

      This article argues that a digitalisation of German schools is too expensive, will only make children play games and chat during lessons and is therefore unnecessary… It’s from 2018.

      “The claim that smartphones in the hands of children and adolescents are primarily instruments of the knowledge society is adventurous.” (*smart phones because since nobody wants to pay for computers in schools “the solution” proposed by the school minister of North Rhine Westphalia is that school children should bring their own devices) https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/digitalisierung-der-schule-grosser-unfug-15519960.html

      We sadly seem to be extremely far away from even imagining collectively augmenting human intellect.

    2. However, the computer has many other capabilities for manipulating and displaying information that can be of significant benefit to the human in nonmathematical processes of planning, organizing, studying, etc. Every person who does his thinking with symbolized concepts (whether in the form of the English language, pictographs, formal logic, or mathematics) should be able to benefit significantly.

      Rich representations -- besides computational power -- are absolutely key for the described scenario.

      This description, written half a century ago, is more or less realized. It reminded me of the Microsoft Vision 2019 created around 2009 that is yet to be realized.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2PMbvVGS-o

    3. We refer to a way of life in an integrated domain where hunches, cut-and-try, intangibles, and the human "feel for a situation" usefully co-exist with powerful concepts, streamlined terminology and notation, sophisticated methods, and high-powered electronic aids.

      I appreciate the recognition of both the "arts" and "science" of problem solving.

    4. the complexity of his problems grows still faster, and the urgency with which solutions must be found becomes steadily greater in response to the increased rate of activity and the increasingly global nature of that activity.

      A situation characterized as The Ingenuity Gap by Homer-Dixon.

    1. Engelbart’s dream was different. He believed that networked computing could empower collective intelligence, offering humanity a way to address complex problems together.

      Nice to see this link to Bret Victor's "annotation" of Engelbart's ideas. Check out Victor's work on dynamic representations and Dynamicland if you haven't yet.

  12. Jan 2019
    1. Sebaiknya, Kementerian Ristekdikti tidak hanya menjadikan kuantitas publikasi dan skor H-index Scopus sebagai tolak ukur keberhasilan program penelitian dan publikasi internasional. Kualitas artikel ilmiah yang diterbitkan oleh jurnal internasional bereputasi lebih bermakna. Untuk rekan sejawat dosen Indonesia, alangkah baiknya kita berlomba meningkatkan kualitas hasil penelitian dan publikasi ilmiah. Rentang waktu yang agak lama ketika proses revisi naskah ilmiah oleh para reviewer mari kita sikapi sebagai proses peningkatan kualitas saintifik kita.

      Saya masih setuju sampai sini. Untuk paragraf kedua, di sinilah peran preprint (atau versi pra cetak). Silahkan kirim ke jurnal manapun, tapi jangan lupa anda juga punya hak untuk mempublikasikannya seawal mungkin, tanpa ada batasan peninjauan sejawat. Manfaatkan hak itu.

      Aktivitas mengunggah preprint atau dokumen apapun ke media yang diindeks oleh mesin pencari (misal Google Scholar) akan menyebabkan seolah karya anda membengkak. Jangan khawatir. Kalau memang kegiatan anda banyak, ya wajar banyak dokumen yang dihasilkan. Mesin pencari atau pengindeks tugasnya menemukan dokumen itu saat kawan atau kolega anda mencari informasi. Itu saja tugas. Ia tidak bertugas memberikan skor atau nilai kepada dokumen anda. Jadi untuk apa memprotes seseorang yang terlalu banyak mengunggah dokumen daring. Lebih baik instrumen pengindeksnya saja yang dimatikan. Toh bukan itu tujuannya dibuat awalnya.

  13. Aug 2018
    1. (Sometimes, in the early years, I called these the Service System and the User System)

      As he does in the Project MAC memo, summer 1963.

    2. By 1959 1 was lucky enough to get a small grant from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR, from Harold Wooster and Rowena Swanson) which carried me for several years -- not enough for my full-time work, but by 1960 SRI began pitching in the difference.

      Actually, I think Doug has this backwards, at least from what I can see in the archives. SRI did pitch in half of his salary, but that seems to have been the first funding, in early 1960. The AFOSR proposal was submitted in mid-December 1960 and the funding, which allowed Doug to go full-time, kicked in in March, 1961.

  14. Jun 2018
    1. The mean proportional difference in the citation frequency between Scopus and Google Scholar was 14.71%

      Apakah perbedaan ini tergolong kecil atau tidak signifikan? Bila hasil ini konsisten pada berbagai kasus, apakah kemudian untuk alasan ekonomis, cukupkah bagi kita di masa mendatang untuk kemudian mendasarkan diri ke GS saja?

    2. Citation performance of Indonesian scholarly journals indexed in Scopus from Scopus and Google Scholar

      Salam dan terima kasih untuk Tim Penulis.

      Secara umum artikel ini patut dihargai, karena penulis telah meluangkan waktu dan tenaga untuk menuangkan hasil penjaringan informasi sitasi dari Google Scholar (GS) dan Scopus yang telah diagregasi SINTA.

      Artikel ini bersifat deskriptif, yang mana artikel jenis ini sering terlupakan, padahal fakta-fakta menarik akan muncul setelah data dan grafik terpampang rapih dalam bentuk artikel. Semoga artikel ini dapat menggugah banyak pendapat yang bersifat argumentatif yang kemudian dapat melahirkan artikel-artikel baru.

      Perkenankan saya meninggalkan beberapa catatan untuk artikel ibu dan bapak ini.

  15. Apr 2017
    1. The letters that were exchanged among the membership of the Royal Society in the mid-17th century, and that were later gathered into journals, gradually accrued formalized processes of review, editing, production, and distribution. In creating this new product —the scholarly journal—learned societies found one part of the financial model that would allow them to serve their larger goals. Scholars were encouraged to join and maintain their memberships in order to receive the journal. In addition to memberships made available to individuals, journal subscriptions were created for libraries, allowing academic institutions to help support the organizations that facilitated, validated, and circulated the work of their faculty members.

      History of journals from letters

  16. Mar 2017
  17. Jul 2016
    1. Figure 3 illustrates at what age ceased ‘indie’ journals stopped publishing. Most journals survived the first 2–5 years period, whereas the mortality rate rose in the critical 6–9 years period. After that, the number of journals ceasing dropped sharply, indicating that the surviving journals had found stability.

      Most critical period for journals is 6-9 years. After year ten, the number of journals that stop drops quickly

    2. The development over time of active ‘indie’ OA journals before and after 2002 is shown in Figs. 1A and 1B. A journal was counted as ‘active’ in a particular year if it was still publishing articles in that year. Before 2002 the number of active journals grew very rapidly from a total of 76 journals in 1995 to 207 journals in 2002. The year 2002 was the cut-off year to be included in the studied cohort, meaning that no new journals were added to the data set after this point in time. After 2002, the number of journals in the cohort decreased steadily to the 127 that stayed active in 2014.

      Interesting charts showing the rise and then decline of independent, scholar-published OA journals

    3. The average number of articles published was 31 per year with 74% publishing 0–30 articles, and 9% 60 or more. The study also contains interesting data about the workload done, revenues etc.

      Average numbers of articles in OJS journals: 31

      • 74% publish 0-30
      • 9% 60 or more
    4. “The key question for OA publishing is whether it can be scaled up from a single journal publishing model with relatively few articles published per year to a comprehensive major journal with of the order of 50–100 articles annually.” They further note: “The continuation of the journal relies very heavily on the personal involvement of the editor and is as such a risk to the model. Employing staff to handle, for example, management, layout and copyediting tasks, is a cost-increasing factor that also is a threat to the model.” Both questions are still highly relevant today.

      Key issues facing scholar-published journals: can they ramp up; can they survive succession.

    5. Often the enthusiasm of the founders and their personal network can carry a volunteer-based journal for a few years. But at that same time this type of journal, which lack the support of employed staff and a professional publishing organization, are threatened by many dangers. The editor may change affiliation or retire, or the support of the university hosting the journal might be withdrawn. Authors may stop sending in good manuscripts and it may become more and more difficult to find motivated reviewers. Not being included in the Web of Science, and the impact factor that follows, may in the long run limit the number of submissions severely. On the positive side of the balance the emergence of open source software for publishing (i.e., Open Journals System) and cheap or free hosting services like Latin American Scielo have facilitated the technical parts of publishing.

      Problems with Scholar-published journals

    6. Open Access (OA) is nowadays increasingly being used as a business model for the publishing of scholarly peer reviewed journals, both by specialized OA publishing companies and major, predominantly subscription-based publishers. However, in the early days of the web OA journals were mainly founded by independent academics, who were dissatisfied with the predominant print and subscription paradigm and wanted to test the opportunities offered by the new medium. There is still an on-going debate about how OA journals should be operated, and the volunteer model used by many such ‘indie’ journals has been proposed as a viable alternative to the model adopted by big professional publishers where publishing activities are funded by authors paying expensive article processing charges (APCs). Our longitudinal quantitative study of 250 ‘indie’ OA journals founded prior to 2002, showed that 51% of these journals were still in operation in 2014 and that the median number of articles published per year had risen from 11 to 18 among the survivors. Of these surviving journals, only 8% had started collecting APCs. A more detailed qualitative case study of five such journals provided insights into how such journals have tried to ensure the continuity and longevity of operations.

      Abstract

    7. A longitudinal study of independent scholar-published open access journals

      Björk, Bo-Christer, Cenyu Shen, and Mikael Laakso. 2016. “A Longitudinal Study of Independent Scholar-Published Open Access Journals.” PeerJ 4 (May). peerj.com: e1990. doi:10.7717/peerj.1990.

  18. Mar 2016
    1. In the MIT Libraries we’ve just launched a new and innovative approach for our scholarly communications program — and for our collections budget: the collections budget is now part of the scholarly communications program.

      Super rad!

  19. Jun 2015
    1. Inclusion Guidelines for Webmasters

      This documentation describes the technology behind indexing of websites with scholarly articles in Google Scholar. It's written for webmasters who would like their papers included in Google Scholar search results. Detailed technical information is helpful if you're trying to fix an error in indexing of your own website, or you need to make sure that your article hosting product is compatible with Google and Google Scholar search services.
https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3Ascholar
hypothes.is
CC-MAIN-2024-33
413374
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:DZ4XCNCEIXKRHKCW2V5YN76C2D6T72AB
<urn:uuid:68e305e6-0ef8-4e71-b075-cdb8f38ee9fd>
2024-08-03T14:18:04Z
172.67.22.135
text/html
sha1:63QGKV7A6JFVNDQ4VHFSX3W2CIMRLRIB
<urn:uuid:d0bf1a49-d21f-41fe-ac4d-23437fbd0fd7>
https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3Ascholar
response
<urn:uuid:782d8e0a-2301-419d-a1da-0a0aded1827e>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-29
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/