Primer on Data Sharing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Primer by John Ure: “…encapsulates insights gleaned from the Inter-Modal Transport Data Sharing Programme, a collaborative effort known as Data Trust 1.0 (DT1), conducted in Hong Kong between 2020 and 2021. This initiative was a pioneering project that explored the feasibility of sharing operational data between public transport entities through a Trusted Third Party. The objective was to overcome traditional data silos and promote evidence-based public transport planning.

DT1, led by the ‘HK Team’ in conjunction with Dr. Jiangping Zhou and colleagues from the University of Hong Kong, successfully demonstrated that data sharing between public transport companies, both privately-owned and government-owned, was viable. Operational data, anonymised and encrypted, were shared with a Trusted Third Party and aggregated for analysis, supported by a Transport Data Analytics Service Provider. The data was used solely for analysis purposes, and confidentiality was maintained throughout.

The establishment of the Data Trust was underpinned by the creation of a comprehensive Data Sharing Framework (DSF). This framework, developed collaboratively, laid the groundwork for future data sharing endeavours. The DSF has been shared internationally, fostering the exchange of knowledge and best practices across diverse organisations and agencies. The Guide serves as a repository of lessons learned, accessible studies, and references, aimed at facilitating a comprehensive understanding of data sharing methodologies.

The central aim of the Guide is twofold: to promote self-learning and to offer clarity on intricate approaches related to data sharing. Its intention is to encourage researchers, governmental bodies, commercial enterprises, and civil society entities, including NGOs, to actively engage in data sharing endeavours. By combining data sets, these stakeholders can glean enhanced insights and contribute to the common good…(More)”.

Changing Facebook’s algorithm won’t fix polarization, new study finds

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Naomi Nix, Carolyn Y. Johnson, and Cat Zakrzewski: “For years, regulators and activists have worried that social media companies’ algorithms were dividing the United States with politically toxic posts and conspiracies. The concern was so widespread that in 2020, Meta flung open troves of internal data for university academics to study how Facebook and Instagram would affect the upcoming presidential election.

The first results of that research show that the company’s platforms play a critical role in funneling users to partisan information with which they are likely to agree. But the results cast doubt on assumptions that the strategies Meta could use to discourage virality and engagement on its social networks would substantially affect people’s political beliefs.

“Algorithms are extremely influential in terms of what people see on the platform, and in terms of shaping their on-platform experience,” Joshua Tucker, co-director of the Center for Social Media and Politics at New York University and one of the leaders on the research project, said in an interview.

“Despite the fact that we find this big impact in people’s on-platform experience, we find very little impact in changes to people’s attitudes about politics and even people’s self-reported participation around politics.”

The first four studies, which were released on Thursday in the journals Science and Nature, are the result of a unique partnership between university researchers and Meta’s own analysts to study how social media affects political polarization and people’s understanding and opinions about news, government and democracy. The researchers, who relied on Meta for data and the ability to run experiments, analyzed those issues during the run-up to the 2020 election. The studies were peer-reviewed before publication, a standard procedure in science in which papers are sent out to other experts in the field who assess the work’s merit.

As part of the project, researchers altered the feeds of thousands of people using Facebook and Instagram in fall of 2020 to see if that could change political beliefs, knowledge or polarization by exposing them to different information than they might normally have received. The researchers generally concluded that such changes had little impact.

The collaboration, which is expected to be released over a dozen studies, also will examine data collected after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Tucker said…(More)”.

AI By the People, For the People

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Billy Perrigo/Karnataka: “…To create an effective English-speaking AI, it is enough to simply collect data from where it has already accumulated. But for languages like Kannada, you need to go out and find more.

This has created huge demand for datasets—collections of text or voice data—in languages spoken by some of the poorest people in the world. Part of that demand comes from tech companies seeking to build out their AI tools. Another big chunk comes from academia and governments, especially in India, where English and Hindi have long held outsize precedence in a nation of some 1.4 billion people with 22 official languages and at least 780 more indigenous ones. This rising demand means that hundreds of millions of Indians are suddenly in control of a scarce and newly-valuable asset: their mother tongue.

Data work—creating or refining the raw material at the heart of AI— is not new in India. The economy that did so much to turn call centers and garment factories into engines of productivity at the end of the 20th century has quietly been doing the same with data work in the 21st. And, like its predecessors, the industry is once again dominated by labor arbitrage companies, which pay wages close to the legal minimum even as they sell data to foreign clients for a hefty mark-up. The AI data sector, worth over $2 billion globally in 2022, is projected to rise in value to $17 billion by 2030. Little of that money has flowed down to data workers in India, Kenya, and the Philippines.

These conditions may cause harms far beyond the lives of individual workers. “We’re talking about systems that are impacting our whole society, and workers who make those systems more reliable and less biased,” says Jonas Valente, an expert in digital work platforms at Oxford University’s Internet Institute. “If you have workers with basic rights who are more empowered, I believe that the outcome—the technological system—will have a better quality as well.”

In the neighboring villages of Alahalli and Chilukavadi, one Indian startup is testing a new model. Chandrika works for Karya, a nonprofit launched in 2021 in Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore) that bills itself as “the world’s first ethical data company.” Like its competitors, it sells data to big tech companies and other clients at the market rate. But instead of keeping much of that cash as profit, it covers its costs and funnels the rest toward the rural poor in India. (Karya partners with local NGOs to ensure access to its jobs go first to the poorest of the poor, as well as historically marginalized communities.) In addition to its $5 hourly minimum, Karya gives workers de-facto ownership of the data they create on the job, so whenever it is resold, the workers receive the proceeds on top of their past wages. It’s a model that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the industry…(More)”.

Public Policy and Technological Transformations in Africa

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book edited by Gedion Onyango: “This book examines the links between public policy and Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) technological developments in Africa. It broadly assesses three key areas – policy entrepreneurship, policy tools and citizen participation – in order to better understand the interfaces between public policy and technological transformations in African countries. The book presents incisive case studies on topics including AI policies, mobile money, e-budgeting, digital economy, digital agriculture and digital ethical dilemmas in order to illuminate technological proliferation in African policy systems. Its analysis considers the broader contexts of African state politics and governance. It will appeal to students, instructors, researchers and practitioners interested in governance and digital transformations in developing countries…(More)”.

Interested but Uncertain: Carbon Markets and Data Sharing among U.S. Crop Farmers

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Guang Han and Meredith T. Niles: “The potential for farmers and agriculture to sequester carbon and contribute to global climate change goals is widely discussed. However, there is currently low participation in agricultural carbon markets and a limited understanding of farmer perceptions and willingness to participate. Furthermore, farmers’ concerns regarding data privacy may complicate participation in agricultural carbon markets, which necessitates farmer data sharing with multiple entities. This study aims to address research gaps by assessing farmers’ willingness to participate in agricultural carbon markets, identifying the determinants of farmers’ willingness regarding carbon markets participation, and exploring how farmers’ concerns for data privacy relate to potential participation in agricultural carbon markets. Data were collected through a multistate survey of 246 farmers and analyzed using descriptive statistics, factor analysis, and multinomial regression models. We find that the majority of farmers (71.8%) are aware of carbon markets and would like to sell carbon credits, but they express high uncertainty about carbon market information, policies, markets, and cost impacts. Just over half of farmers indicated they would share their data for education, developing tools and models, and improving markets and supply chains. Farmers who wanted to participate in carbon markets were more likely to have higher farm revenues, more likely to share their data overall, more likely to share their data with private organizations, and more likely to change farming practices and had more positive perceptions of the impact of carbon markets on farm profitability. In conclusion, farmers have a general interest in carbon market participation, but more information is needed to address their uncertainties and concerns…(More)”.

Creating public sector value through the use of open data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Summary paper prepared as part of data.europa.eu: “This summary paper provides an overview of the different stakeholder activities undertaken, ranging from surveys to a focus group, and presents the key insights from this campaign regarding data reuse practices, barriers to data reuse in the public sector and suggestions to overcome these barriers. The following recommendations are made to help data.europa.eu support public administrations to boost open data value creation.

  • When it comes to raising awareness and communication, any action should also contain examples of data reuse by the public sector. Gathering and communicating such examples and use cases greatly helps in understanding the importance of the role of the public sector as a data reuser
  • When it comes to policy and regulation, it would be beneficial to align the ‘better regulation’ activities and roadmaps of the European Commission with the open data publication activities, in order to better explore the internal data needs. Furthermore, it would be helpful to facilitate a similar alignment and data needs analysis for all European public administrations. For example, this could be done by providing examples, best practices and methodologies on how to map data needs for policy and regulatory purposes.
  • Existing monitoring activities, such as surveys, should be revised to ensure that data reuse by the public sector is included. It would be useful to create a panel of users, based on the existing wide community, that could be used for further surveys.
  • The role of data stewards remains central to favouring reuse. Therefore, examples, best practices and methodologies on the role of data stewards should be included in the support activities – not specifically for public sector reusers, but in general…(More)”.

Journalism Is a Public Good and Should Be Publicly Funded

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Patrick Walters: “News deserts” have proliferated across the U.S. Half of the nation’s more than 3,140 counties now have only one newspaper—and nearly 200 of them have no paper at all. Of the publications that survive, researchers have found many are “ghosts” of their former selves.

Journalism has problems nationally: CNN announced hundreds of layoffs at the end of 2022, and National Geographic laid off the last of its staff writers this June. In the latter month the Los Angeles Times cut 13 percent of its newsroom staff. But the crisis is even more acute at the local level, with jobs in local news plunging from 71,000 in 2008 to 31,000 in 2020. Closures and cutbacks often leave people without reliable sources that can provide them with what the American Press Institute has described as “the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their daily lives.”

Americans need to understand that journalism is a vital public good—one that, like roads, bridges and schools, is worthy of taxpayer support. We are already seeing the disastrous effects of otherwise allowing news to disintegrate in the free market: namely, a steady supply of misinformation, often masquerading as legitimate news, and too many communities left without a quality source of local news. Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan has a called this a “crisis of American democracy.”

The terms “crisis” and “collapse” have become nearly ubiquitous in the past decade when describing the state of American journalism, which has been based on a for-profit commercial model since the rise of the “penny press” in the 1830s. Now that commercial model has collapsed amid the near disappearance of print advertising. Digital ads have not come close to closing the gap because Google and other platforms have “hoovered up everything,” as Emily Bell, founding director of the Tow Center for Journalism at Columbia University, told the Nieman Journalism Lab in a 2018 interview. In June the newspaper chain Gannett sued Google’s parent company, alleging it has created an advertising monopoly that has devastated the news industry.

Other journalism models—including nonprofits such as MinnPost, collaborative efforts such Broke in Philly and citizen journalism—have had some success in fulfilling what Lewis Friedland of the University of Wisconsin–Madison called “critical community information needs” in a chapter of the 2016 book The Communication Crisis in America, and How to Fix It. Friedland classified those needs as falling in eight areas: emergencies and risks, health and welfare, education, transportation, economic opportunities, the environment, civic information and political information. Nevertheless, these models have proven incapable of fully filling the void, as shown by the dearth of quality information during the early years of the COVID pandemic. Scholar Michelle Ferrier and others have worked to bring attention to how news deserts leave many rural and urban areas “impoverished by the lack of fresh, daily local news and information,” as Ferrier wrote in a 2018 article. A recent study also found evidence that U.S. judicial districts with lower newspaper circulation were likely to see fewer public corruption prosecutions.

A growing chorus of voices is now calling for government-funded journalism, a model that many in the profession have long seen as problematic…(More)”.

Why This AI Moment May Be the Real Deal

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Ari Schulman: “For many years, those in the know in the tech world have known that “artificial intelligence” is a scam. It’s been true for so long in Silicon Valley that it was true before there even was a Silicon Valley.

That’s not to say that AI hadn’t done impressive things, solved real problems, generated real wealth and worthy endowed professorships. But peek under the hood of Tesla’s “Autopilot” mode and you would find odd glitches, frustrated promise, and, well, still quite a lot of people hidden away in backrooms manually plugging gaps in the system, often in real time. Study Deep Blue’s 1997 defeat of world chess champion Garry Kasparov, and your excitement about how quickly this technology would take over other cognitive work would wane as you learned just how much brute human force went into fine-tuning the software specifically to beat Kasparov. Read press release after press release of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube promising to use more machine learning to fight hate speech and save democracy — and then find out that the new thing was mostly a handmaid to armies of human grunts, and for many years relied on a technological paradigm that was decades old.

Call it AI’s man-behind-the-curtain effect: What appear at first to be dazzling new achievements in artificial intelligence routinely lose their luster and seem limited, one-off, jerry-rigged, with nothing all that impressive happening behind the scenes aside from sweat and tears, certainly nothing that deserves the name “intelligence” even by loose analogy.

So what’s different now? What follows in this essay is an attempt to contrast some of the most notable features of the new transformer paradigm (the T in ChatGPT) with what came before. It is an attempt to articulate why the new AIs that have garnered so much attention over the past year seem to defy some of the major lines of skepticism that have rightly applied to past eras — why this AI moment might, just might, be the real deal…(More)”.

Innovation Can Reboot American Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Suzette Brooks Masters: “A thriving multiracial pluralist democracy is an aspiration that many people share for America. Far from being inevitable, the path to such a future is uncertain.

To stretch how we think about American democracy’s future iterations and begin to imagine the contours of the new, we need to learn from what’s emergent. So I’m going to take you on a whirlwind tour of some experiments taking place here and abroad that are the bright spots illuminating possible futures ahead.

My comments are informed by a research report I wrote last year called Imagining Better Futures for American Democracy. I interviewed dozens of visionaries in a range of fields and with diverse perspectives about the future of our democracy and the role positive visioning and futures thinking could play in reinvigorating it.

As I discuss these bright spots, I want to emphasize that what is most certain now is the accelerating and destabilizing change we are experiencing. It’s critical therefore to develop systems, institutions, norms and mindsets to navigate that change boldly and responsibly, not pretend that tomorrow will continue to look like today.

Yet when paradigms shift, as they inevitably do and I would argue are right now, that’s a messy and confusing time that can cause lots of anxiety and disorientation. During these critical periods of transition, we must set aside or ‘hospice” some assumptions, mindsets, practices, and institutions, while midwifing, or welcoming in, new ones.

This is difficult to do in the best of times but can be especially so when, collectively, we suffer from a lack of imagination and vision about what American democracy could and should become.

It’s not all our fault — inertia, fear, distrust, cynicism, diagnosis paralysis, polarization, exceptionalism, parochialism, and a pervasive, dystopian media environment are dragging us down. They create very strong headwinds weakening both our appetite and our ability to dream bigger and imagine better futures ahead.

However, focusing on and amplifying promising innovations can change that dysfunctional dynamic by inspiring us and providing blueprints to act upon when the time is right.

Below I discuss two main types of innovations in the political sphere: election-related structural reforms and governance reforms, including new forms of civic engagement and government decision-making…(More)”.

The Eyewitness Community Survey: An Engaging Citizen Science Tool to Capture Reliable Data while Improving Community Participants’ Environmental Health Knowledge and Attitudes

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Melinda Butsch Kovacic: “Many youths and young adults have variable environmental health knowledge, limited understanding of their local environment’s impact on their health, and poor environmentally friendly behaviors. We sought to develop and test a tool to reliably capture data, increase environmental health knowledge, and engage youths as citizen scientists to examine and take action on their community’s challenges. The Eyewitness Community Survey (ECS) was developed through several iterations of co-design. Herein, we tested its performance. In Phase I, seven youths audited five 360° photographs. In Phase II, 27 participants works as pairs/trios and audited five locations, typically 7 days apart. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were determined. Changes in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and self-efficacy were surveyed. Feedback was obtained via focus groups. Intra-rater reliability was in the substantial/near-perfect range, with Phase II having greater consistency. Inter-rater reliability was high, with 42% and 63% of Phase I and II Kappa, respectively, in the substantial/near-perfect range. Knowledge scores improved after making observations (p ≤ 0.032). Participants (85%) reported the tool to be easy/very easy to use, with 70% willing to use it again. Thus, the ECS is a mutually beneficial citizen science tool that rigorously captures environmental data and provides engaging experiential learning opportunities…(More)”.