Associative Semantic Search Is a New Technology, Not a Mental Diagnosis
December 6, 2016
“Associative semantic” sounds like a new mental diagnosis for the DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders), but it actually is the name of a search technology that sounds like it amplifies the basic semantic search. Aistemos has the run down on the new search technology in the article, “Associative Semantic Search Technology: Omnity And IP.” Omnity is the purveyor of the “associative semantic search” and it makes the standard big data promise:
…the discovery of otherwise hidden, high-value patterns of interconnection within and between fields of knowledge as diverse as science, medicine, engineering, law and finance.
All of the companies centered on big data have this same focus or something similar, so what does Omnity offer that makes it stand out? It proposes to find connections between documents that do not directly correlate or cite one another. Omnity uses the word “accelerate” to explain how it will discover hidden patterns and expand knowledge. The implications mean semantic search would once again be augmented and more accurate.
Any industry that relies on detailed documents would benefit:
Such a facility would presumably enable someone to find references to relevant patents, technologies and prior art on a far wider scale than has hitherto been the case. The legal, strategic and commercial implications of being able to do this, for litigation, negotiation, due diligence, investment and forward planning are sufficiently obvious for us not to need to list them here.
The article suggests those who would most be interested in Omnity are intellectual property businesses. I can imagine academics would not mind getting their hands on the associative semantic search to power their research or law enforcement could use it to fight crime.
Whitney Grace, December 6, 2016
Writing That Is Never Read
November 23, 2016
It is inevitable in college that you were forced to write an essay. Writing an essay usually requires the citation of various sources from scholarly journals. As you perused the academic articles, the thought probably crossed your mind: who ever reads this stuff? Smithsonian Magazine tells us who in the article, “Academics Write Papers Arguing Over How Many People Read (And Cite) Their Papers.” In other words, themselves.
Academic articles are read mostly by their authors, journal editors, and the study’s author write, and students forced to cite them for assignments. In perfect scholarly fashion, many academics do not believe that their work has a limited scope. So what do they do? They decided to write about it and have done so for twenty years.
Most academics are not surprised that most written works go unread. The common belief is that it is better to publish something rather than nothing and it could also be a requirement to keep their position. As they are prone to do, academics complain about the numbers and their accuracy:
It seems like this should be an easy question to answer: all you have to do is count the number of citations each paper has. But it’s harder than you might think. There are entire papers themselves dedicated to figuring out how to do this efficiently and accurately. The point of the 2007 paper wasn’t to assert that 50 percent of studies are unread. It was actually about citation analysis and the ways that the internet is letting academics see more accurately who is reading and citing their papers. “Since the turn of the century, dozens of databases such as Scopus and Google Scholar have appeared, which allow the citation patterns of academic papers to be studied with unprecedented speed and ease,” the paper’s authors wrote.
Academics always need something to argue about, no matter how miniscule the topic. This particular article concludes on the note that someone should get the number straight so academics can move onto to another item to argue about. Going back to the original thought a student forced to write an essay with citations also probably thought: the reason this stuff does not get read is because they are so boring.
Whitney Grace, November 23, 2016
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Hack a Scholarly Journal
December 7, 2015
Scholarly journals and other academic research are usually locked down under a copyright firewall that requires an expensive subscription to access. Most of the people who want this content are researchers, writers, scientists, students, and other academics. Most people who steal content usually steal movies, software, books, and material related to pop culture or expensive to buy elsewhere. Scholarly journals fall into the latter category, but Science Mag shares a new trend for hackers, “Feature: How To Hijack A Journal.”
Journal hacking is not new, but it gaining traction due to the multimillion-dollar academic publishing industry. Many academic writers pay to publish their papers in a journal and the fees range in hundreds of dollars. What happens is something called Web site spoofing, where hackers buy a closely related domain or even hack the actual journal’s domain a create a convincing Web site. The article describes several examples where well-known journals were hijacked, including one he did himself.
How can you check to see if an online journal is the real deal?
“First, check the domain registration data online by performing a WHOIS query. (It’s not an acronym, but rather a computer protocol to look up “who is” behind a particular domain.) If the registration date is recent but the journal has been around for years, that’s the first clue. Also suspicious is if the domain’s country of registration is different from the journal’s publisher, or if the publisher’s name and contact information are kept anonymous by private domain registrars.”
Sadly, academic journals will be at risk for some time, because many of the publishers never adapted to online publishing, sometimes someone forgets to pay a domain name bill, and they rely on digital object identifiers to map Web addresses to papers.
Scholarly journals are important for academic research, but their publishing models are outdated anyway. Maybe if they were able to keep up the hacking would not happen as often.
Whitney Grace, December 7, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Juvenile Journal Behavior
April 28, 2015
Ah, more publisher excitement. Neuroskeptic, a blogger at Discover, weighs in on a spat between scientific journals in, “Academic Journals in Glass Houses….” The write-up begins by printing a charge lobbed at Frontiers in Psychology by the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease (JNMD), in which the latter accuses the former of essentially bribing peer reviewers. It goes on to explain the back story, and why the blogger feels the claim against Frontiers is baseless. See the article for those details, if you’re curious.
Here’s the part that struck me: Neuroskeptic supplies the example hinted at in his or her headline:
“For the JNMD to question the standards of Frontiers peer review process is a bit of a ‘in glass houses / throwing stones’ moment. Neuroskeptic readers may remember that it was JNMD who one year ago published a paper about a mysterious device called the ‘quantum resonance spectrometer’ (QRS). This paper claimed that QRS can detect a ‘special biological wave… released by the brain’ and thus accurately diagnose schizophrenia and other mental disorders – via a sensor held in the patient’s hand. The article provided virtually no details of what the ‘QRS’ device is, or how it works, or what the ‘special wave’ it is supposed to measure is. Since then, I’ve done some more research and as far as I can establish, ‘QRS’ is an entirely bogus technology. If JNMD are going to level accusations at another journal, they ought to make sure that their own house is in order first.”
This is more support for the conclusion that many of today’s “academic” journals cannot be trusted. Perhaps the profit-driven situation will be overhauled someday, but in the meantime, let the reader beware.
Cynthia Murrell, April 28, 2015
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, publisher of the CyberOSINT monograph
Predicting Plot Holes Isn’t So Easy
April 10, 2015
According to The Paris Review’s blog post “Man In Hole II: Man In Deeper Hole” Mathew Jockers created an analysis tool to predict archetypal book plots:
A rough primer: Jockers uses a tool called “sentiment analysis” to gauge “the relationship between sentiment and plot shape in fiction”; algorithms assign every word in a novel a positive or negative emotional value, and in compiling these values he’s able to graph the shifts in a story’s narrative. A lot of negative words mean something bad is happening, a lot of positive words mean something good is happening. Ultimately, he derived six archetypal plot shapes.”
Academics, however, found some problems with Jockers’s tool, such as is it possible to assign all words an emotional variance and can all plots really take basic forms? The problem is that words are as nuanced as human emotion, perspectives change in an instant, and sentiments are subjective. How would the tool rate sarcasm?
All stories have been broken down into seven basic plots, so why can it not be possible to do the same for book plots? Jockers already identified six basic book plots and there are some who are curiously optimistic about his analysis tool. It does beg the question if will staunch author’s creativity or if it will make English professors derive even more subjective meaning from Ulysses?
Whitney Grace, April 10, 2015
Stephen E Arnold, Publisher of CyberOSINT at www.xenky.com
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
