اشترك بالحزمة الذهبية واحصل على وصول غير محدود شمرا أكاديميا
تسجيل مستخدم جديدTowards decolonising computational sciences
91
0
0.0
(
0
)
اسأل ChatGPT حول البحث
ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
This article sets out our perspective on how to begin the journey of decolonising computational fields, such as data and cognitive sciences. We see this struggle as requiring two basic steps: a) realisation that the present-day system has inherited, and still enacts, hostile, conservative, and oppressive behaviours and principles towards women of colour (WoC); and b) rejection of the idea that centering individual people is a solution to system-level problems. The longer we ignore these two steps, the more our academic system maintains its toxic structure, excludes, and harms Black women and other minoritised groups. This also keeps the door open to discredited pseudoscience, like eugenics and physiognomy. We propose that grappling with our fields histories and heritage holds the key to avoiding mistakes of the past. For example, initiatives such as diversity boards can still be harmful because they superficially appear reformatory but nonetheless center whiteness and maintain the status quo. Building on the shoulders of many WoCs work, who have been paving the way, we hope to advance the dialogue required to build both a grass-roots and a top-down re-imagining of computational sciences -- including but not limited to psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, computer science, data science, statistics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. We aspire for these fields to progress away from their stagnant, sexist, and racist shared past into carving and maintaining an ecosystem where both a diverse demographics of researchers and scientific ideas that critically challenge the status quo are welcomed.
قيم البحث
اقرأ أيضاً
This paper investigates the reproducibility of computational science research and identifies key challenges facing the community today. It is the result of the First Summer School on Experimental Methodology in Computational Science Research (https:/
/blogs.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/emcsr2014/). First, we consider how to reproduce experiments that involve human subjects, and in particular how to deal with different ethics requirements at different institutions. Second, we look at whether parallel and distributed computational experiments are more or less reproducible than serial ones. Third, we consider reproducible computational experiments from fields outside computer science. Our final case study looks at whether reproducibility for one researcher is the same as for another, by having an author attempt to have others reproduce their own, reproducible, paper. This paper is open, executable and reproducible: the whole process of writing this paper is captured in the source control repository hosting both the source of the paper, supplementary codes and data; we are providing setup for several experiments on which we were working; finally, we try to describe what we have achieved during the week of the school in a way that others may reproduce (and hopefully improve) our experiments.
Researchers and practitioners across many disciplines have recently adopted computational notebooks to develop, document, and share their scientific workflows - and the GIS community is no exception. This chapter introduces computational notebooks in
the geographical context. It begins by explaining the computational paradigm and philosophy that underlie notebooks. Next it unpacks their architecture to illustrate a notebook users typical workflow. Then it discusses the main benefits notebooks offer GIS researchers and practitioners, including better integration with modern software, more natural access to new forms of data, and better alignment with the principles and benefits of open science. In this context, it identifies notebooks as the glue that binds together a broader ecosystem of open source packages and transferable platforms for computational geography. The chapter concludes with a brief illustration of using notebooks for a set of basic GIS operations. Compared to traditional desktop GIS, notebooks can make spatial analysis more nimble, extensible, and reproducible and have thus evolved into an important component of the geospatial science toolkit.
Traditional fact checking by expert journalists cannot keep up with the enormous volume of information that is now generated online. Computational fact checking may significantly enhance our ability to evaluate the veracity of dubious information. He
re we show that the complexities of human fact checking can be approximated quite well by finding the shortest path between concept nodes under properly defined semantic proximity metrics on knowledge graphs. Framed as a network problem this approach is feasible with efficient computational techniques. We evaluate this approach by examining tens of thousands of claims related to history, entertainment, geography, and biographical information using a public knowledge graph extracted from Wikipedia. Statements independently known to be true consistently receive higher support via our method than do false ones. These findings represent a significant step toward scalable computational fact-checking methods that may one day mitigate the spread of harmful misinformation.
In this work, we present a high-level computational model of IT-mediated crowds for collective intelligence. We introduce the Crowd Capital perspective as an organizational-level model of collective intelligence generation from IT-mediated crowds, an
d specify a computational system including agents, forms of IT, and organizational knowledge.
Methods for understanding the decisions of and mechanisms underlying deep neural networks (DNNs) typically rely on building intuition by emphasizing sensory or semantic features of individual examples. For instance, methods aim to visualize the compo
nents of an input which are important to a networks decision, or to measure the semantic properties of single neurons. Here, we argue that interpretability research suffers from an over-reliance on intuition-based approaches that risk-and in some cases have caused-illusory progress and misleading conclusions. We identify a set of limitations that we argue impede meaningful progress in interpretability research, and examine two popular classes of interpretability methods-saliency and single-neuron-based approaches-that serve as case studies for how overreliance on intuition and lack of falsifiability can undermine interpretability research. To address these concerns, we propose a strategy to address these impediments in the form of a framework for strongly falsifiable interpretability research. We encourage researchers to use their intuitions as a starting point to develop and test clear, falsifiable hypotheses, and hope that our framework yields robust, evidence-based interpretability methods that generate meaningful advances in our understanding of DNNs.
سجل دخول لتتمكن من نشر تعليقات
التعليقات
جاري جلب التعليقات
سجل دخول لتتمكن من متابعة معايير البحث التي قمت باختيارها
