45 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2019
  2. Jul 2019
    1. Scholars who are also members of marginalized groups disproportionately take up this kind of engaged scholarship, often without commensurate credit from university administrators or colleagues (Ellison and Eatmen 2008; Park 1996; Stanley 2006; Taylor and Raeburn 1995; Turner et al 2008; Villalpando and Bernal 2002).
    1. A tool to help determine weights (or a feature of a creditmap tool) seems most likely to be successful. Such a tool would likely have provide simultaneous views of the credit map and weights: one that allows a detailed view of any particular contriponent and its weight, and the other that provides a view (perhaps graphical) of the entire creditmap and weights.

      Great idea! Doesn't seem to exist yet, but it should also take in account the quality of each contribution (a few high-quality contributions can be more important than many low-quality contributions).

    2. The value of transitive credit is in measuring the indirect contributions to a product, which today are not quantitatively captured

      Should contributions to a product really be quantitatively captured? Wouldn't that lead to the same dead-end as with citation in scientific publication?

    3. how the credit map for a product A, which is used by a product B, feeds into the credit map for product B

      Transitive credit's 3rd element: transitive nature

    4. Any product should list all authors (as currently listed as authors of a paper), all contributors (as currently listed in the acknowledgements of a paper) and all component products that have been used, including both publications and other products such as software and data (as currently either cited, acknowledged, or not included in a paper).

      Transitive credit's 1st element: credit (called "contriponent" - combination of contributors and components)

    5. Methods for doing this weighting, whether using a taxonomy or a more traditional list of authors, and analysis of these methods and their impact would likely be developed if this overall idea moves forward.

      Transitive credit's 2nd element: weight

  3. May 2019
    1. “If Facebook is providing a consumer’s data to be used for the purposes of credit screening by the third party, Facebook would be a credit reporting agency,” Reidenberg explained. “The [FCRA] statute applies when the data ‘is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumer’s eligibility for … credit.'” If Facebook is providing data about you and your friends that eventually ends up in a corporate credit screening operation, “It’s no different from Equifax providing the data to Chase to determine whether or not to issue a credit card to the consumer,” according to Reidenberg.
    2. “It sure smells like the prescreening provisions of the FCRA,” Reidenberg told The Intercept. “From a functional point of view, what they’re doing is filtering Facebook users on creditworthiness criteria and potentially escaping the application of the FCRA.”
    3. In an initial conversation with a Facebook spokesperson, they stated that the company does “not provide creditworthiness services, nor is that a feature of Actionable Insights.” When asked if Actionable Insights facilitates the targeting of ads on the basis of creditworthiness, the spokesperson replied, “No, there isn’t an instance where this is used.” It’s difficult to reconcile this claim with the fact that Facebook’s own promotional materials tout how Actionable Insights can enable a company to do exactly this. Asked about this apparent inconsistency between what Facebook tells advertising partners and what it told The Intercept, the company declined to discuss the matter on the record,
    4. How consumers would be expected to navigate this invisible, unofficial credit-scoring process, given that they’re never informed of its existence, remains an open question.
  4. Apr 2018
  5. burn.coplacdigital.org burn.coplacdigital.org
    1. http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-1126 https://www.biography.com/people/harper-lee-9377021

      Easy to find citation. While I like the simple style, maybe go ahead and do a full citation?

  6. Aug 2017
    1. To conclude, the possibility of receiving a loan increases based on our experience. In some cases, we have even seen a drop in the interest rate. This results in more people receiving access to credit with a better interest rate thanks to increase of scoring model accuracy. We believe that designing systems from the start in discrimination-conscious way will reduce the risk of machine-learning algorithms introducing unintentional bias much like humans do. This should avoid the moral problem of discrimination. In addition, requiring drivers to pass an eye test discriminates against the blind, but eyesight is quite essential to safely drive a car. As the last exclusion is justified then loaning to people who are not creditworthy should be an acceptable exclusion as well.
    2. big data scoring credit score financial inclusion

  7. Mar 2017
    1. Meanwhile Teresa Mackinnon has been able to represent our rhizomatically evolving project in the UK and elsewhere got it accepted as a case study by a European Project.

      recognition

    2. Suddenly people in my institution appeared to be taking what I had to say seriously..to almost trust me.

      Credit recognition identity

  8. Jul 2016
    1. Page 6

      Computer-assisted research in the humanities, by contrast to the Cartesian story and traditional humanities practices, has almost always been collaborative. This is due to the variety of skills needed to implement digital humanities projects. It is also linked to the relationship between the practices of interpretation in the development of the tools of interpretation, be the tools for analyzing text or digital editions. Anyone who has used tools forged by another person is in collaboration, even if one isn't personally influencing the provider of the tools. The need to collaborate, though acknowledged in various ways, has been a professional hindrance, as anyone who submits a curriculum vitae for promotion listing nothing but co-authored papers knows.

    1. Page 223

      This is Borgman discussing the role of priority in the humanities

      cultural and historical events can be reinterpreted repeatedly. Prizes are based on the best interpretation rather than on the first claim to a finding.

  9. Jun 2016
  10. content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.alu.talonline.ca
    1. AN APPROACH TO ANALYSING WORKING PRACTICES OFRESEARCH COMMUNITIES IN THE HUMANITIE

      Benardou, Agiatis, Panos Constantopoulos, and Costis Dallas. 2013. “An Approach to Analyzing Working Practices of Research Communities in the Humanities.” International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 7 (1–2): 105–27. doi:10.3366/ijhac.2013.0084.

    1. A.E. Nudelman and C.E. Landers, 1972, The failure of 100 divided by 3 to equal 333, American Sociologist 7, 9.

      Important bibliography on division of authorship credit

    2. Using a combination of questionnaires and interviews, Nudel- man and Landers [48] found that for the case of a three-author article the first author received 75% of the intellectual credit of a single-author paper, the second author 62% and the third author 58%. Thus, a three-author paper would be given a total of nearly twice the credit of a single-author paper.

      How credit for multi-authored papers is not fractional.

    1. ights (1, 3, 5) are summed to(a) estimate each individual’s overall contribution, whichcan range from 1–35 (735 being the maximum possiblescore), and (b) determine the sequence in which coauthors’names are listed on the resultant publication.

      Insanely detailed matrix: function by contribution level

    2. To date, more than 500 journals have adopted theICMJE’s (1997) principles of authorship as laid out in the5th edition of theUniform Requirements for ManuscriptsSubmitted to Biomedical Journals(Klein, 1999; Stern,2000). According to these concrete guidelines, candidateauthors must satisfy three conditions. They must make:“. . . substantial contributions to (a) conception and design,or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting thearticle or revising it critically for important intellectualcontent; and on (c) final approval of the version to bepublished.” Laudable though these guidelines are, it is un-likely that they will solve the problem. A study by Hoen etal. (1998) in the Netherlands found that authors and theircoauthors did not always agree with one another’s assess-ments that the ICMJE criteria had been met. In the UK,Bhopal et al.’s (1997) survey of medical researchers dis-covered that, although most respondents concurred with thethree criteria (more than 80% in each case), a majority(62%) did not feel that all three conditions should have to besatisfied to warrant author status. F

      problems with the ICMJE's author definition

    3. Rennie, Yank, andEmanuel (1997) that the distinction between the two modesof credit allocation is inherently artificial. Consequently,they have argued for explicit description of all individualcontributions as a means of eliminating ambiguity. Such aproposal would remove both authorship and acknowledg-ment from the frame, a really quite significant break withscholarly publishing tradition. This alternative amounts to aradical model of authorship attribution in contrast to thestandard model

      Rennie, Yank, and Emanuel 1997 argue that acknowledgements and authorship can't be disentangled.

    4. The explosion of coauthorship naturally raises the ques-tion why authorial surplus could not be accommodated inthe acknowledgment sections that accompany the great ma-jority of scientific articles.

      Why can't explosion of coauthors be contained in acknowledgements?

      [[because "authorship" (in the sense of writing) is simply not important enough to be an above the fold thing

    5. eceiving credit under false pretenses,are cause for grave concern (Anderson, 1991).

      on receiving credit under false pretences

    6. Under the standard model, the rights and responsibilitiesof authorship are clearly apprehended by all parties: authors,editors, referees, and readers. In appending my name to thisarticle I am nailing my colors to mast; if the article attractscritical approval, is discussed, quoted, and, in due course,cited in the scholarly literature, I shall be happy to bank thesymbolic capital which accrues to me as author and origi-nator. If the paper is challenged because of exiguity oftheoretical, historical, or empirical heft, I shall simply haveto face the music: there are no coauthors to help deflectcriticism. Likewise, if I am challenged for drawing toosparingly, selectively, or generously on the ideas and workof others, I understand the possible consequences. However,I have chosen not to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, orbypass the rigors of peer review by posting a version of thispaper on my Web site; rather, I want to publicize my ideasamong my peers, and the best way to do that, and signify mytrustworthiness, is to pursue publication in an accreditedforum. As a serial author, I am fully cognizant of the rightsand responsibilities of authorship. I understand the norms ofscholarly publishing, and I am aware of the sanctions thatmay be invoked if infractions occur. Should the argumentsin this paper prove flawed, no one but myself is to blame,and that includes those whom I have named in the acknowl-edgments section. If the paper attracts attention, I shall behappy to bask in the glow.

      Great discussion of why scientists/scholars author and what they accept and risk as a result

    7. n the realm of periodical publications,the sovereignty of the standard model is being most hotlycontested in biomedical research fields, where intense levelsof professional collaboration and coauthorship are common-place (Croll, 1984; Rennie & Flanagin, 1994; Rennie, Yank,& Emanuel, 1997; Rennie & Yank, 1998; King, 2000).Proposals for reform, which seek to retire the concept ofauthorship and replace it with a scheme for the allocation ofspecific, task- or job-related credits (e.g., Squires, 1996;Smith, 1997) are not only being debated by editors andothers, but are being adopted by leading scientific journal

      On how credit and authorship is being debated in medical publishing (with bibliography)

    8. ncidentally, parallel,though not quite so dramatic, growth has been observed inthe number of individuals being formally acknowledged inscholarly journals for their multifarious contributions: whathas become known as subauthorship collaboration (Patel,1973; Heffner, 1979, 1981; Cronin, 1995, Cronin,2001)—an important, if underappreciated, indicator of in-formal scientific collaboration

      on underappreciated nature of acknowledgements

    9. s Rennie and Flanagin(1994) remind us, there is no standard method for determin-ing order, nor any universalistic criteria for conferring au-thorship status:

      bibliography on authorship practices

    10. uthorship (and therecognition that flows therefrom) is the undisputed coin ofthe realm in academia: it embodies the enterprise of schol-arship (Bourdieu, 1991; Cronin, 1984, 2000; Franck, 1999

      Authorship "is the coin of the realm in academia"; "it empbodies the enterprise of scholarship.

    11. o state the obvious, public affirmation of au-thorship is absolutely central to the operation of the aca-demic reward system, whether one is a classicist,sociologist, or experimental physicist.

      Authorship is central to the operation of the academy, whether classicist or physicist

    12. lphabetization through weightedlisting to reverse seniority (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel,1970; Riesenberg & Lundberg, 1990).

      bibliography on authorship ranking and practices

  11. Oct 2015
    1. Blacks were herded into the sights of unscrupulous lenders who took them for money and for sport.

      These lenders think this is all a game... It sickens me that another human would knowingly exploit someone's inability to establish a legitimate position in the credit system.