Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userRecommendations for Planning Inclusive Astronomy Conferences
66
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The Inclusive Astronomy (IA) conference series aims to create a safe space where community members can listen to the experiences of marginalized individuals in astronomy, discuss actions being taken to address inequities, and give recommendations to the community for how to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion in astronomy. The first IA was held in Nashville, TN, USA, 17-19 June, 2015. The Inclusive Astronomy 2 (IA2) conference was held in Baltimore, MD, USA, 14-15 October, 2019. The Inclusive Astronomy 2 (IA2) Local Organizing Committee (LOC) has put together a comprehensive document of recommendations for planning future Inclusive Astronomy conferences based on feedback received and lessons learned. While these are specific to the IA series, many parts will be applicable to other conferences as well. Please find the recommendations and accompanying letter to the community here: https://outerspace.stsci.edu/display/IA2/LOC+Recommendations.
rate research
Read More
The emergence of the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic has forced academic conferences to be held entirely in a virtual manner. While prior studies have advocated the merits of virtual conferences in terms of energy and cost savings, organizers are increasingly facing the prospect of planning and executing them systematically, in order to deliver a rich conference-attending-experience for all participants. Starting from March 2020, tens of conferences have been held virtually. Past conferences have revealed numerous challenges, from budget planning, to selecting the supporting virtual platforms. Among these, two special challenges were identified: 1) how to deliver talks to geo-distributed attendees and 2) how to stimulate social interactions among attendees. These are the two important goals of an academic conference. In this paper, we advocate a mirror program approach for academic conferences. More specifically, the conference program is executed in multiple parallel (mirrored) programs, so that each mirror program can fit a different time zone. This can effectively address the first challenge.
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) aims to empower patients to take an active role in their treatment choices, supported by clinicians and patient decision aids (PDAs). The purpose of this study is to explore barriers and possible facilitators to SDM and a PDA in the prostate cancer trajectory. In the process we identify possible actions that organizations and individuals can take to support implementation in practice. Methods: We use the Ottawa Model of Research Use as a framework to determine the barriers and facilitators to SDM and PDAs from the perspective of clinicians. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with urologists (n=4), radiation oncologists (n=3), and oncology nurses (n=2), focusing on the current decision-making process experienced by these stakeholders. Questions included their attitudes towards SDM and PDAs, barriers to implementation and possible strategies to overcome them. Results: Time pressure and patient characteristics were cited as major barriers by 55% of the clinicians we interviewed. Structural factors such as external quotas for certain treatment procedures were also considered as barriers by 44% of the clinicians. Facilitating factors involved organizational changes to em-bed PDAs in the treatment trajectory, training in using PDAs as a tool for SDM, and clinician motivation by disseminating positive clinical outcomes. Our findings also suggest a role for external stakeholders such as healthcare insurers in creating economic incentives to facilitate implementation. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the importance of a multi-faceted implementation strategy to support SDM. While clinician motivation and patient activation are essential, structural/economic barriers may hamper implementation. Action must also be taken at the administrative and policy levels to foster a collaborative environment for SDM and, in the process, for PDAs.
Hierarchical model fitting has become commonplace for case-control studies of cognition and behaviour in mental health. However, these techniques require us to formalise assumptions about the data-generating process at the group level, which may not be known. Specifically, researchers typically must choose whether to assume all subjects are drawn from a common population, or to model them as deriving from separate populations. These assumptions have profound implications for computational psychiatry, as they affect the resulting inference (latent parameter recovery) and may conflate or mask true group-level differences. To test these assumptions we ran systematic simulations on synthetic multi-group behavioural data from a commonly used multi-armed bandit task (reinforcement learning task). We then examined recovery of group differences in latent parameter space under the two commonly used generative modelling assumptions: (1) modelling groups under a common shared group-level prior (assuming all participants are generated from a common distribution, and are likely to share common characteristics); (2) modelling separate groups based on symptomatology or diagnostic labels, resulting in separate group-level priors. We evaluated the robustness of these approaches to variations in data quality and prior specifications on a variety of metrics. We found that fitting groups separately (assumptions 2), provided the most accurate and robust inference across all conditions. Our results suggest that when dealing with data from multiple clinical groups, researchers should analyse patient and control groups separately as it provides the most accurate and robust recovery of the parameters of interest.
Currently, there is a surge of interest in fair Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research which aims to mitigate discriminatory bias in AI algorithms, e.g. along lines of gender, age, and race. While most research in this domain focuses on developing fair AI algorithms, in this work, we show that a fair AI algorithm on its own may be insufficient to achieve its intended results in the real world. Using career recommendation as a case study, we build a fair AI career recommender by employing gender debiasing machine learning techniques. Our offline evaluation showed that the debiased recommender makes fairer career recommendations without sacrificing its accuracy. Nevertheless, an online user study of more than 200 college students revealed that participants on average prefer the original biased system over the debiased system. Specifically, we found that perceived gender disparity is a determining factor for the acceptance of a recommendation. In other words, our results demonstrate we cannot fully address the gender bias issue in AI recommendations without addressing the gender bias in humans.
Our project aims at helping independent musicians to plan their concerts based on the economies of agglomeration in the music industry. Initially, we planned to design an advisory tool for both concert pricing and location selection. Nonetheless, after implementing SGD linear regression and support vector regression models, we realized that concert price does not vary significantly according to different music types, concert time, concert location and ticket venues. Therefore, to offer more useful suggestions, we focus on the location choice problem by turning it to a classification task. The overall performance of our classification model is pretty good. After tuning hyperparameters, we discovered the Random Forest gives the best performance, improving the classification result by 316%. This result reveals that we could help independent musicians better locate their concerts to where similar musicians would go, namely a place with higher network effects.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
