Over the last decades, participatory approaches involving on-farm experimentation have become more prevalent in agricultural research. Nevertheless, these approaches remain difficult to scale because they usually require close attention from well-trained professionals. Novel large-N participatory trials, building on recent advances in citizen science and crowdsourcing methodologies, involve large numbers of participants and little researcher supervision. Reduced supervision may affect data quality, but the “Wisdom of Crowds” principle implies that many independent observations from a diverse group of people often lead to highly accurate results when taken together. In this study, we test whether farmer-generated data in agricultural citizen science are good enough to generate valid statements about the research topic. We experimentally assess the accuracy of farmer observations in trials of crowdsourced crop variety selection that use triadic comparisons of technologies (tricot). At five sites in Honduras, 35 farmers (women and men) participated in tricot experiments. They ranked three varieties of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for Plant vigor, Plant architecture, Pest resistance, and Disease resistance. Furthermore, with a simulation approach using the empirical data, we did an order-of-magnitude estimation of the sample size of participants needed to produce relevant results. Reliability of farmers’ experimental observations was generally low (Kendall’s W 0.174 to 0.676). But aggregated observations contained information and had sufficient validity (Kendall’s tau coefficient 0.33 to 0.76) to identify the correct ranking orders of varieties by fitting Mallows-Bradley-Terry models to the data. Our sample size simulation shows that low reliability can be compensated by engaging higher numbers of observers to generate statistically meaningful results, demonstrating the usefulness of the Wisdom of Crowds principle in agricultural research. In this first study on data quality from a farmer citizen science methodology, we show that realistic numbers of less than 200 participants can produce meaningful results for agricultural research by tricot-style trials….(More)”.
China seeks glimpse of citizens’ future with crime-predicting AI
Yuan Yang, Yingzhi Yang and Sherry Fei Ju in the Financial Times: “China, a surveillance state where authorities have unchecked access to citizens’ histories, is seeking to look into their future with technology designed to predict and prevent crime. Companies are helping police develop artificial intelligence they say will help them identify and apprehend suspects before criminal acts are committed. “If we use our smart systems and smart facilities well, we can know beforehand . . . who might be a terrorist, who might do something bad,” Li Meng, vice-minister of science and technology, said on Friday.
Facial recognition company Cloud Walk has been trialling a system that uses data on individuals’ movements and behaviour — for instance visits to shops where weapons are sold — to assess their chances of committing a crime. Its software warns police when a citizen’s crime risk becomes dangerously high, allowing the police to intervene. “The police are using a big-data rating system to rate highly suspicious groups of people based on where they go and what they do,” a company spokesperson told the Financial Times. Risks rise if the individual “frequently visits transport hubs and goes to suspicious places like a knife store”, the spokesperson added. China’s authoritarian government has always amassed personal data to monitor and control its citizens — whether they are criminals or suspected of politically sensitive activity. But new technology, from phones and computers to fast-developing AI software, is amplifying its capabilities. These are being used to crack down on even the most minor of infractions — facial recognition cameras, for instance, are also being used to identify and shame jaywalkers, according to state media. Mr Li said crime prediction would become an important use for AI technology in the government sphere.
China’s crime-prediction technology relies on several AI techniques, including facial recognition and gait analysis, to identify people from surveillance footage. In addition, “crowd analysis” can be used to detect “suspicious” patterns of behaviour in crowds, for example to single out thieves from normal passengers at a train stations. As well as tracking people with a criminal history, Cloud Walk’s technology is being used to monitor “high-risk” places such as hardware stores…(More)”
Crowdsourcing Expertise to Increase Congressional Capacity
Austin Seaborn at Beeck Center: “Members of Congress have close connections with their districts, and information arising from local organizations, such as professional groups, academia, industry as well as constituents with relevant expertise (like retirees, veterans or students) is highly valuable to them. Today, congressional staff capacity is at a historic low, while at the same time, constituents in districts are often well equipped to address the underlying policy questions that Congress seeks to solve….
In meetings we have had with House and Senate staffers, they repeatedly express both the difficulty managing their substantial area-specific work loads and their interest in finding ways to substantively engage constituents to find good nuggets of information to help them in their roles as policymakers. At the same time, constituents are demanding more transparency and dialogue from their elected representatives. In many cases, our project brings these two together. It allows Members to tap the expertise in their districts while at the same time creating an avenue for constituents to contribute their knowledge and area expertise to the legislative process. It’s a win for constituents and a win for Member of Congress and their staffs.
It is important to note that the United States lags behind other democracies in experimenting with more inclusive methods during the policymaking process. In the United Kingdom, for example, the UK Parliament has experimented with a variety of new digital tools to engage with constituents. These methods range from Twitter hashtags, which are now quite common given the rise in social media use by governments and elected officials, to a variety of web forums on a variety of platforms. Since June of 2015, they have also been doing digital debates, where questions from the general public are crowdsourced and later integrated into a parliamentary debate by the Member of Parliament leading the debate. Estonia, South Africa, Taiwan, France also…notable examples.
One promising new development we hope to explore more thoroughly is the U.S. Library of Congress’s recently announced legislative data App Challenge. This competition is distinct from the many hackathons that have been held on behalf of Congress in the past, in that this challenge seeks new methods not only to innovate, but also to integrate and legislate. In his announcement, the Library’s Chief Information Officer, Bernard A. Barton, Jr., stated, “An informed citizenry is better able to participate in our democracy, and this is a very real opportunity to contribute to a better understanding of the work being done in Washington. It may even provide insights for the people doing the work around the clock, both on the Hill, and in state and district offices. Your innovation and integration may ultimately benefit the way our elected officials legislate for our future.” We believe these sorts of new methods will play a crucial role in the future of engaging citizens in their democracies….(More)”.
The DeepMind debacle demands dialogue on data
What can be done to address this deficit? Beyond meeting legal standards, all relevant institutions must take care to show themselves trustworthy in the eyes of the public. The lapses of the Royal Free hospitals and DeepMind provide, by omission, valuable lessons.
The first is to be open about what data are transferred. The extent of data transfer between the Royal Free and DeepMind came to light through investigative journalism. In my opinion, had the project proceeded under open contracting, it would have been subject to public scrutiny, and to questions about whether a company owned by Google — often accused of data monopoly — was best suited to create a relatively simple app.
The second lesson is that data transfer should be proportionate to the task. Information-sharing agreements should specify clear limits. It is unclear why an app for kidney injury requires the identifiable records of every patient seen by three hospitals over a five-year period.
Finally, governance mechanisms must be strengthened. It is shocking to me that the Royal Free did not assess the privacy impact of its actions before handing over access to records. DeepMind does deserve credit for (belatedly) setting up an independent review panel for health-care projects, especially because the panel has a designated budget and has not required members to sign non-disclosure agreements. (The two groups also agreed a new contract late last year, after criticism.)
More is needed. The Information Commissioner asked the Royal Free to improve its processes but did not fine it or require it to rescind data. This rap on the knuckles is unlikely to deter future, potentially worse, misuses of data. People are aware of the potential for over-reach, from the US government’s demands for state voter records to the Chinese government’s alleged plans to create a ‘social credit’ system that would monitor private behaviour.
Innovations such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and the Internet of Things offer great opportunities, but will falter without a public consensus around the role of data. To develop this, all data collectors and crunchers must be open and transparent. Consider how public confidence in genetic modification was lost in Europe, and how that has set back progress.
Public dialogue can build trust through collaborative efforts. A 14-member Citizen’s Reference Panel on health technologies was convened in Ontario, Canada in 2009. The Engage2020 programme incorporates societal input in the Horizon2020 stream of European Union science funding….(More)”
Policy Entrepreneurship at the White House
Tom Kalil on “getting things done in large organizations“: “For a total of 16 years, I had the honor and privilege of working at the White House, first for President Clinton (1993-2001) and later for President Obama (2009-2017). My colleagues and I had the opportunity to help design, launch, and sustain dozens of science and technology policy initiatives. We launched major research initiatives to create the “industries of the future,” such as robotics and advanced materials. We worked with Congress to give every agency the authority to support incentive prizes of up to $50 million, and to make it easier for startups to raise capital and go public. We built coalitions of government agencies, companies, foundations, universities, and nonprofits to prepare 100,000 K-12 STEM teachers, foster more vibrant startup ecosystems all over America, advance the Maker Movement and accelerate the commercialization of federally funded research. On a good day we were able to serve as “policy entrepreneurs,” which involved generating or spotting new ideas and taking the steps needed to identify and evaluate policy options, support a sound decisionmaking process, ensure implementation, and monitor the effectiveness of the president’s policies and initiatives….(More)”
Active Citizenship in Europe: Practices and Demands in the EU, Italy, Turkey and the UK
Book by Cristiano Bee: “…provides an overview of key issues in the debate concerning the emergence of active citizenship in Europe.
The specific focus of enquiry is the promotion of patterns of civic and political engagement and civic and political participation by the EU and the relative responses drawn by organizations of the civil society operating at the supranational level and in Italy, Turkey and the UK. More specifically, it addresses key debates on the engagement and participation of organized civil society across the permanent state of euro-crisis, considering the production of policy discourses along the continuum that characterized three subsequent and interrelated emergency situations (democratic, financial and migration crises) that have hit Europe since 2005. …(More)”.
Smart Technologies for Smart Governments: Transparency, Efficiency and Organizational Issues
Book edited by Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar: “…examines the introduction of smart technologies into public administrations and the organizational issues caused by these implementations, and the potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to rationalize and improve government, transform governance and organizational issues, and address economic, social, and environmental challenges. Cities are increasingly using new technologies in the delivery of public sector services and in the improvement of government transparency, business-led urban development, and urban sustainability. The book will examine specific smart projects that cities are embracing to improve transparency, efficiency, sustainability, mobility, and whether all cities are prepared to implement smart technologies and the incentives for promoting implementation. This focus on the smart technologies applied to public sector entities will be of interest to academics, researchers, policy-makers, public managers, international organizations and technical experts involved in and responsible for the governance, development and design of Smart Cities….(More)”.
How open data can help the Global South, from disaster relief to voter turnout
Stefaan Verhulst and Andrew Young in The Conversation Global: “The modern era is marked by growing faith in the power of data. “Big data”, “open data”, and “evidence-based decision-making” have become buzzwords, touted as solutions to the world’s most complex and persistent problems, from corruption and famine to the refugee crisis.
While perhaps most pronounced in higher income countries, this trend is now emerging globally. In Africa, Latin America, Asia and beyond, hopes are high that access to data can help developing economies by increasing transparency, fostering sustainable development, building climate resiliency and the like.
This is an exciting prospect, but can opening up data actually make a difference in people’s lives?
Getting data-driven about data
The GovLab at New York University spent the last year trying to answer that question….
Our conclusion: the enthusiasm is justified – as long as it’s tempered with a good measure of realism, too. Here are our six major takeaways:
1. We need a framework – Overall, there is still little evidence to substantiate the enthusiastic claims that open data can foment sustainable development and transform governance. That’s not surprising given the early stage of most open data initiatives.
It may be early for impact evaluation, but it’s not too soon to develop a model that will eventually allow us to assess the impact of opening up data over time.
To that end, the GovLab has created an evidence-based framework that aims to better capture the role of open data in developing countries. The Open Data Logic Framework below focuses on various points in the open data value cycle, from data supply to demand, use and impact.
2. Open data has real promise – Based on this framework and the underlying evidence that fed into it, we can guardedly conclude that open data does in fact spur development – but only under certain conditions and within the right supporting ecosystem.
One well-known success took place after Nepal’s 2015 earthquake when open data helped NGOs map important landmarks such as health facilities and road networks, among other uses.
And in Colombia, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture launched Aclímate Colombia, a tool that gives smallholder farmers data-driven insight into planting strategies that makes them more resilient to climate change….
3. Open data can improve people’s lives Examining projects in a number of sectors critical to development, including health, humanitarian aid, agriculture, poverty alleviation, energy and education, we found four main ways that data can have an impact….
4. Data can be an asset in development While these impacts are apparent in both developed and developing countries, we believe that open data can have a particularly powerful role in developing economies.
Where data is scarce, as it often is in poorer countries, open data can lead to an inherently more equitable and democratic distribution of information and knowledge. This, in turn, may activate a wider range of expertise to address complex problems; it’s what we in the field call “open innovation”.
This quality can allow resource-starved developing economies to access and leverage the best minds around.
And because trust in government is quite low in many developing economies, the transparency bred of releasing data can have after-effects that go well beyond the immediate impact of the data itself…
5. The ingredients matter To better understand why some open data projects fail while others succeed, we created a “periodic table” of open data (below), which includes 27 enabling factors divided into five broad categories….
6. We can plan for impact Our report ends by identifying how development organisations can catalyse the release and use of open data to make a difference on the ground.
Recommendations include:
· Define the problem, understand the user, and be aware of local conditions;
· Focus on readiness, responsiveness and change management;
· Nurture an open data ecosystem through collaboration and partnerships;
· Have a risk mitigation strategy;
· Secure resources and focus on sustainability; and
· Build a strong evidence base and support more research.
Next steps
In short, while it may still be too early to fully capture open data’s as-of-yet muted impact on developing economies, there are certainly reasons for optimism.
Much like blockchain, drones and other much-hyped technical advances, it’s time to start substantiating the excitement over open data with real, hard evidence.
The next step is to get systematic, using the kind of analytical framework we present here to gain comparative and actionable insight into if, when and how open data works. Only by getting data-driven about open data can we help it live up to its potential….(More)“
Global network of ‘hunters’ aim to take down terrorists on the internet
Olivia Solon at The Guardian: “Colonel Kurtz used to spend hours playing social games like Farmville. Now he hunts terrorists on the internet.
The pseudonymous 41-year-old, who runs his own construction company, is one of dozens of volunteer “hunters” to dedicate hours each day trying to identify and infiltrate terror groups online and block the spread of their propaganda.
“We’re trying to save lives and get this crap off the net to keep the next vulnerable kid from seeing propaganda and thinking it’s cool,” said Kurtz.
These hunters plug a gap in social media companies’ ability to keep terrorists off their networks by obsessively tracking and reporting Isis’s most prominent recruiters and propagandists across private messaging apps like Telegram and WhatsApp and public networks like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Some of them also provide valuable tip-offs of credible threats to law enforcement.
This type of hunting originated in 2014, when hacktivist collective Anonymous declared “war” on Islamic State with the #OpIsis campaign. The loosely affiliated army of digital activists set out to expose and report Isis supporters on social media, and hack or take down their websites.
Kurtz became a hunter following the November 2015 Paris attack. He had been watching the France-Germany friendly football match online when it was disrupted by loud explosions. That day seven attackers carried out mass shootings and suicide bombings that killed 129 people in France’s capital.
After writing an angry Facebook post about the attack, Kurtz was contacted by a friend and member of Anonymous asking if he’d like to help out with #OpIsis. “It took me a few days to figure things out and after a few weeks I was dropping accounts like flies,” he said.
Out of Anonymous’ #OpIsis there have emerged more considered, organized groups including Ghost Security Group, KDK and a “drama and ego-free” group that Kurtz formed in 2016 after getting tired of the Islamophobia and inaccuracy within the operation…(More).
Modernizing government’s approach to transportation and land use data: Challenges and opportunities
Adie Tomer and Ranjitha Shivaram at Brookings: “In the fields of transportation and land use planning, the public sector has long taken the leading role in the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data. Often, public data sets drawn from traveler diaries, surveys, and supply-side transportation maps were the only way to understand how people move around in the built environment – how they get to work, how they drop kids off at school, where they choose to work out or relax, and so on.
But, change is afoot: today, there are not only new data providers, but also new types of data. Cellphones, GPS trackers, and other navigation devices offer real-time demand-side data. For instance, mobile phone data can point to where distracted driving is a problem and help implement measures to deter such behavior. Insurance data and geo-located police data can guide traffic safety improvements, especially in accident-prone zones. Geotagged photo data can illustrate the use of popular public spaces by locals and tourists alike, enabling greater return on investment from public spaces. Data from exercise apps like Fitbit and Runkeeper can help identify recreational hot spots that attract people and those that don’t.
However, integrating all this data into how we actually plan and build communities—including the transportation systems that move all of us and our goods—will not be easy. There are several core challenges. Limited staff capacity and restricted budgets in public agencies can slow adoption. Governmental procurement policies are stuck in an analog era. Privacy concerns introduce risk and uncertainty. Private data could be simply unavailable to public consumers. And even if governments could acquire all of the new data and analytics that interest them, their planning and investment models must be updated to fully utilize these new resources.
Using a mix of primary research and expert interviews, this report catalogs emerging data sets related to transportation and land use, and assesses the ease by which they can be integrated into how public agencies manage the built environment. It finds that there is reason for the hype; we have the ability to know more about how humans move around today than at any time in history. But, despite all the obvious opportunities, not addressing core challenges will limit public agencies’ ability to put all that data to use for the collective good….(More)”