Paper Envisions an Open Science Platform for Chemistry Researchers
July 14, 2022
What could be accomplished if machine learning were harnessed to help scientists connect, collaborate, and build on each other’s findings? A team of researchers ponders “Making the Collective Knowledge of Chemistry Open and Machine Actionable.” Researchers Kevin Maik Jablonka, Luc Patiny, and Berend Smit hope their suggestions will bring the field of chemistry closer to FAIR principles (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable). The paper, published by Nature Chemistry, observes:
“Chemical research is still largely centered around paper-based lab notebooks, and the publication of data is often more an afterthought than an integral part of the process. Here we argue that a modular open-science platform for chemistry would be beneficial not only for data-mining studies but also, well beyond that, for the entire chemistry community. Much progress has been made over the past few years in developing technologies such as electronic lab notebooks that aim to address data-management concerns. This will help make chemical data reusable, however it is only one step. We highlight the importance of centering open-science initiatives around open, machine-actionable data and emphasize that most of the required technologies already exist—we only need to connect, polish and embrace them.”
The authors go on to describe how to do just that using structured and open data with semantic tools. In order to make the transition as smooth as possible, the team suggests data capture should be similar to the way chemists already work. Data should also be generated in a standardized format other researchers can easily use. A formal ontology will be important here. For consistency and accessibility, the paper also recommends building a modular data-analysis platform with a common interface and standardized protocols. This open-science platform would replace the hodgepodge of different, often proprietary, tools currently in use. It would also make publication of data a seamless, and centralized, part of the process. See the paper for all the details. The authors conclude:
“We emphasize that the technology is here not only to facilitate the process of publishing data in a FAIR format to satisfy the sponsors, but also to ensure that the combination of chemical data, FAIR principles and openness gives scientists the possibility to harvest all data so that all chemists can have access to the collective knowledge of everybody’s successful, partly successful and even ‘failed’ experiments.”
Cynthia Murrell, July 14, 2022
Real News Adventures: USA Today Removes Nearly Two Dozen Stories with Alleged Fabrications
July 12, 2022
Fake news or shoddy management? Perhaps a bit of both. Mediaite reports, “USA Today Deletes 23 Articles Following Investigation into Alleged Fabrication by Reporter.” That is a lot of articles to slip past the editors, and it took a nudge from an outside source to put a stop to the allegedly fictional reporting. Writer Gabriela Miranda is also said to have interfered with the publication’s inquiry into the allegations, according to the New York Times piece that broke the news. Writer Jackson Richman quotes a statement USA Today posted on its website:
“After receiving an external correction request, USA Today audited the reporting work of Gabriela Miranda. The audit revealed that some individuals quoted were not affiliated with the organizations claimed and appeared to be fabricated. The existence of other individuals quoted could not be independently verified. In addition, some stories included quotes that should have been credited to others. As a result, USA Today removed 23 articles from its website and other platforms for not meeting our editorial standards. The headlines of the articles are listed below. Miranda has resigned as a reporter for USA Today and the USA Today Network.”
Well that’s embarrassing. The USA Today post goes on to list steps it will take to prevent false reporting in the future, or at least to catch it sooner. The assurances also serve to indicate what may have gone wrong this time, promising to:
“1. Improve our process for those who want to lodge complaints or request corrections.
2. Ensure stories have clear and sufficient identifying information for individuals quoted.
3. Ensure that reporters take appropriate steps at all times to verify source information.
4. Ensure that institutions are contacted to provide a response or statement if they are referenced in the story.
5. Apply additional scrutiny to sources found through blind connections on social media platforms, via email, etc.
6. Reinforce our standards for crediting other outlets for their work.”
We think those steps should have been fundamental to real journalism from the beginning, but what do we know? The statement ends with a list of the offending articles, in case one is curious, but clicking each headline only leads to a notice of removal. Will USA Today take its own vows seriously, or is this list just more fake news?
Cynthia Murrell, July 12, 2022
Substack: Hones Its Focus
July 8, 2022
Substack is a blogging platform which makes monetization easy. The New York Times, the outfit which purchased Wordle, illustrated where it would spend its acquisition dollars: A click machine egame. Why not Substack? Maybe the Gray Lady has an instinct that selling the branded writing of former laborers in publishing’s vineyard was not a good idea.
“Substack Is Laying of 14% of Its Staff” explains:
Many media companies are anticipating headwinds in the coming months as the broader economy shows signs of strain.
Ah, ha. Headwinds.
Substack has to do some adulting to control its cash outflows. The result is:
an effort to conserve cash amid an industry wide funding crunch for start-ups.
What’s the New York Times’ strategy? Write about outfits which sell words whilst hunting for apps which generate traffic.
Real news, star journalists and writers, and compelling content? Nope. The word of the day “crash.”
Stephen E Arnold, July 7, 2022
Mainstream Media: We Are Not Biased, Pew Pew Pew!
June 29, 2022
I read “The Media Bubble Is Real: Study Shows Massive Disconnect between Journalists, Public.” The write up is presenting its possibly enthusiastic view of a Pew research report. Some folks in DC say, “Pew pew pew” when the organization’s actual factual data are presented.
The write up says that journalists perceive themselves as doing a bang up job of reporting “real news.” And 52 percent think “real news” types are watching elected leaders.
The write up then points out:
When asked if journalists manage and correct misinformation consistently, 43 percent of those in the industry said yes, while just 25 percent of the general public agreed. Almost half (46 percent) of journalists said they felt connected to their readers and viewers, while just one-quarter of the public says they feel connected to the media outlets from which they get their news.
Perception may be reality. Self knowledge is a different kettle of fishy things, however.
Pew pew pew.
Stephen E Arnold, June 29, 2022
Mir Books: Filling a Niche
June 23, 2022
Russian literature stereotypically compromises Tolstoy’s novels and works by scientists with unpronounceable names. Another Russian literature stereotype deals with fiction subject matter. It pokes fun at the prolonged, abject suffering of the country, how it has become the standard way of life for them, and that it makes them strong, resilient people. Despite actions by their politicians, the Russian people have a great sense of humor and love joking about their unyielding misery with themselves and foreigners.
As for their non-fiction works, especially in the sciences, there is an entire library of knowledge unknown to the majority of the world. Mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and other scientists are usually the only ones familiar with these works, but these fields have a limited audience.
Mir Books is the name of a defunct Soviet Union publisher as well as a blog maintained by a dedicated fan. The unnamed fan has made it their mission to share these out-of-print titles with the world, because of nostalgia and for posterity.
“An entire generation of Indians came of age with the titles from Mir Publications. But with the end of the Soviet era, the Mir saga came to an end. The Mir titles which at times were cheaply and easily available became scant. And finally ceased to be a part of the mainstream bookshops. The only places one could find them were in the used book shops, and that too became scarce as the years went by. This trend continues till date. To find a Mir title today even in a used book shop is nothing less than a MIRacle!! …
Many of the titles will be lost forever never to delight a new generation of readers. The knowledge that at least these books existed should not be lost. This blog is a project to make a comprehensive list of the titles published by Mir and over the years. So that the knowledge about these titles goes to the larger community, so that in the future someone can take up their digitization and / or republication. I urge and request all the people who owe even a little bit to books by Mir to contribute their knowledge about these books here…”
What is remarkable is that Mir Books published books for the Indian market. India and Russia are not normally associated with each other, but they are close neighbors and it only makes sense they are economic partners, especially in the Soviet age!
The blog creator digitized a lot of rare science texts, but the best are the children’s books. The Soviet Union printed propaganda material just like communist China and Nazi Germany to indoctrinate kids, but they also published educational materials with a Soviet slant. Despite complying with propaganda rules, they do contain scientific facts. The scientists with the unpronounceable names had to get the basics somehow.
Whitney Grace, June 23, 2022
Time Warp: Has April Fool Returned Courtesy of the Google?
June 22, 2022
I delivered a lecture on June 16, 2022, to a group of crime analysts in a US state the name of which I cannot spell. In that talk, I provided a bit of information about faked content: Text, audio, video, and combinations thereof. I am asking myself, “Is this article “Ex-Google Worker: I Was Fired to Complaining about Wine Obsessed Religious Sect’s Influence?” “real news”?
My wobbly mental equipment displayed this in my mind’s eye:
Did the Weekly World News base its dinosaur on the one Google once talked about with pride? Dear Copyright Troll, this image appears in Google’s image search. I think this short essay falls into the category of satire or lousy “real journalism.” In any event, I could not locate this cover on the WWN Web site. Here’s a link to the estimable publication.
A dinosaur-consuming-a-humanoid news, right? Thousands of years ago, meh. The Weekly World News reported that a “real journalist” was eaten alive by 80 ft dinosaur.”
What about the Google Tyrannosaurus Rex which may have inspired the cover for my monograph “Google Version 2: The Calculating Predator?” Images of this fine example of Googley humor are difficult to find. You can view one at this link or just search for images on Bing or your favorite Web image search engine. My hunch is that Google is beavering away to make these images disappear. Hopefully the dino loving outfit will not come after me for my calculating predator.
What’s in the Daily Beast article about terminations for complaining about Google wine obsessed sect at the Google?
Let me provide a little reptilian color if I may:
- A religious sect called the Fellowship of the Friends operates in a Google business unit and exerts influence at the company.
- The Fellowship has 12 people working at the online ad giant
- The Fellowship professionals have allegedly been referred to the GOOG by a personnel outfit called Advanced Systems Group
- The so-called “sect” makes wine.
The point that jumps out at me is that Alphabet Google YouTube DeepMind or AGYD people management professionals took an action now labeled as a “firing” or wrongful termination.
Okay, getting rid of an employee is a core competency at AGYD. Managing negative publicity is, it appears, a skill which requires a bit more work. At least the Google dinosaur did not eat the former Google employee who raised a ruckus about a cult, wine, recruitment, etc. etc.
Stephen E Arnold, June 22, 2022
More Facebook Papers
June 20, 2022
Interested in Facebook? If so, you may find the latest installment of the Facebook papers interesting. Who is publishing these documents? The answer is the “real news” outfit Gizmodo. “The Facebook Papers: How Meta Failed to Fight Against American Climate Denial.” I liked the subtitle because it is Google-ized: “Facebook’s own employees think its efforts combating misinformation on climate change are inadequate. Read the internal documents for yourself.”
The write up explained how “real news” provides access to what are presumably company confidential documents:
In November 2021, Gizmodo partnered with a group of independent experts to review, redact, and publish the Facebook Papers. This committee serves to advise and monitor our work and facilitate the responsible disclosure of the greatest number of documents in the public interest possible. We believe in the value of open access to these materials. Our previous publications have covered Jan. 6 and Donald Trump, Facebook’s ranking algorithms, and the influence that politics has on the company’s product decisions.
Any criteria for “public interest”? Not in the write up.
The article does include a reference to Covid, which seems different from “climate change” and “management processes.”
The article includes links to specific Facebook documents. Helpful for anyone writing a high school term paper or crafting a blue chip consulting firm report.
What does “confidential” mean? I am still puzzling over an answer to that question. Here’s another brain teaser: What does the release of confidential documents say about those who obtain, censor, and plan the release of selectively filtered information?
Hmmm.
Stephen E Arnold, July 20, 2022
When Mouse Pads and Clicks Are Not Enough Google Pays Publishers
June 2, 2022
Watch for flying pigs. It looks like Google has finally caved to pressure from EU news publishers and regulatory agencies. Or do regular publishers now have value for the company? Reuters posts, “EXCLUSIVE: Google Paying More than 300 EU Publishers for News, More to Come.” Reporter Foo Yun Chee writes”
“Google has signed deals to pay more than 300 publishers in Germany, France and four other EU countries for their news and will roll out a tool to make it easier for others to sign up too, the company told Reuters. The move to be announced publicly later on Wednesday followed the adoption of landmark EU copyright rules three years ago that require Google and other online platforms to pay musicians, performers, authors, news publishers and journalists for using their work. News publishers, among Google’s fiercest critics, have long urged governments to ensure online platforms pay fair remuneration for their content. Australia last year made such payments mandatory while Canada introduced similar legislation last month. read more ‘So far, we have agreements which cover more than 300 national, local and specialist news publications in Germany, Hungary, France, Austria, the Netherlands and Ireland, with many more discussions ongoing,’ Sulina Connal, director for news and publishing partnerships, said in blog post seen by Reuters and expected to be published later on Wednesday. The blog did not say how much publishers were being paid.”
It did, however, say the new tool would offer thousands of news publishers throughout Europe the chance to sign up. Google will be able to display thumbnail images and article snippets in exchange for the undisclosed licensing fee. Will this arrangement be enough to placate EU regulators?
Cynthia Murrell, June 2, 2022
Near: A Complement to ClearView AI?
May 26, 2022
“Data Intelligence Startup Near, with 1.6B anonymized User IDs, Lists on NASDAQ via SPAC at a $1B Market Cap; Raises $100M” is an interesting story. On one hand, in the midst of some financial headwinds, the outfit Near is a unicorn. That’s exciting for some. The most significant part of the short item is this passage: Near offers
anonymised, location-based profiles of users based on a trove of information that Near sources and then merges from phones, data partners, carriers and its customers. It claims the database has been built “with privacy by design.”
The word merging as in “merging data from different sources” is not jargony enough. The Near write up uses the term “stitching” as in “threads which hold the parts of a football together.” I prefer the term “federating” as in “federating data.”
The idea is a good one. Take information from different sources, index it (assign tags today, of course) and group information about a person under that entity’s “name.” This is a useful workflow, and my hunch is that the system works best for individuals leaving digital footprints and crumbs of ones and zeros behind as these “entities” go about their business.
The successful merging and profiling will give Near a competitive advantage. Like ClearView and many other companies, scraping and licensing commercial datasets can produce a valuable data asset.
On the downside, as ClearView has learned as it explained its business to legal eagles, some concerns for privacy can arise. Assurances of privacy have created some issues for firms performing similar work for government agencies. Law enforcement and intelligence professionals are likely to show some interest in Near’s products and services.
Successfully navigating marketing to commercial outfits and selling to government agencies is like sailing into an unfamiliar port with a very large boat.
Kudos to near for its funding. Now it will be interesting to watch the firm’s management walk the marketing tightrope over the Niagara Falls of cash flow as legal eagles circle.
Stephen E Arnold, May 26, 2022
More Facebook Documents
May 17, 2022
Facebook apparently generates quite a few documents. In a time of abundance, some of the excess finds its way into places unexpected. “We’re Publishing the Facebook Papers. Here’s How Facebook Killed News Feed Fixes Over Fear of Conservative Backlash” provides those who want to study the Way of the Zuck with some “new” information. The write up has a reason to report a Silicon Valley-type news organization’s interest in chewing on the ankles of Mr. Zuckerberg. The article states:
Facebook said it did not “build and withhold any News Feed changes based on potential impact on any one political party.” Internal documents say otherwise.
You can read allegedly original, once confidential documents from the cited article with additional information at this link.
The main idea seems to be that Facebook mostly does what it wants and says what is necessary to continue on its business trajectory.
What’s the main point?
From my redoubt in rural Kentucky, I have perceived the Zuck operation as an interesting example of information weaponization. I assume that a few other people share my view of the company. The once-confidential documents are interesting, particularly to those rushing to understand how information flows have an impact in the real world and in real time.
Is it possible that Gizmodo is walking a path which may lead to legal questions? Of course not! Freedom of speech and the stuff taught in high school civics. (Ooops. Research is surfacing that suggests online learning is not as zippy as some assumed.) Disclosing content which an enterprise developed for use by authorized individuals strikes me as a variation on the “move fast and break things” approach to some activities.
Gizmodo, it seems to me, is putting the pedal to the metal. Will the buggy break down as it speeds down the information highway trying to catch up with an outfit with a head start?
Stephen E Arnold, May 17, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
