Data Stewardship Decoded: Mapping Its Diverse Manifestations and Emerging Relevance at a time of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Stefaan Verhulst: “Data stewardship has become a critical component of modern data governance, especially with the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI). Despite its increasing importance, the concept of data stewardship remains ambiguous and varies in its application. This paper explores four distinct manifestations of data stewardship to clarify its emerging position in the data governance landscape. These manifestations include a) data stewardship as a set of competencies and skills, b) a function or role within organizations, c) an intermediary organization facilitating collaborations, and d) a set of guiding principles. 

The paper subsequently outlines the core competencies required for effective data stewardship, explains the distinction between data stewards and Chief Data Officers (CDOs), and details the intermediary role of stewards in bridging gaps between data holders and external stakeholders. It also explores key principles aligned with the FAIR framework (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) and introduces the emerging principle of AI readiness to ensure data meets the ethical and technical requirements of AI systems. 

The paper emphasizes the importance of data stewardship in enhancing data collaboration, fostering public value, and managing data reuse responsibly, particularly in the era of AI. It concludes by identifying challenges and opportunities for advancing data stewardship, including the need for standardized definitions, capacity building efforts, and the creation of a professional association for data stewardship…(More)”

Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst


OECD Report: “Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming economies and societies, but its full potential is hindered by poor access to quality data and models. Based on comprehensive country examples, the OECD report “Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data in the Age of AI” highlights how governments can enhance access to and sharing of data and certain AI models, while ensuring privacy and other rights and interests such as intellectual property rights. It highlights the OECD Recommendation on Enhancing Access to and Sharing of Data, which provides principles to balance openness while ensuring effective legal, technical and organisational safeguards. This policy brief highlights the key findings of the report and their relevance for stakeholders seeking to promote trustworthy AI through better policies for data and AI models that drive trust, investment, innovation, and well-being….(More)”

Tech tycoons have got the economics of AI wrong

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The Economist: “…The Jevons paradox—the idea that efficiency leads to more use of a resource, not less—has in recent days provided comfort to Silicon Valley titans worried about the impact of DeepSeek, the maker of a cheap and efficient Chinese chatbot, which threatens the more powerful but energy-guzzling American varieties. Satya Nadella, the boss of Microsoft, posted on X, a social-media platform, that “Jevons paradox strikes again! As AI gets more efficient and accessible, we will see its use skyrocket, turning it into a commodity we just can’t get enough of,” along with a link to the Wikipedia page for the economic principle. Under this logic, DeepSeek’s progress will mean more demand for data centres, Nvidia chips and even the nuclear reactors that the hyperscalers were, prior to the unveiling of DeepSeek, paying to restart. Nothing to worry about if the price falls, Microsoft can make it up on volume.

The logic, however self-serving, has a ring of truth to it. Jevons’s paradox is real and observable in a range of other markets. Consider the example of lighting. William Nordhaus, a Nobel-prizewinning economist, has calculated that a Babylonian oil lamp, powered by sesame oil, produced about 0.06 lumens of light per watt of energy. That compares with up to 110 lumens for a modern light-emitting diode. The world has not responded to this dramatic improvement in energy efficiency by enjoying the same amount of light as a Babylonian at lower cost. Instead, it has banished darkness completely, whether through more bedroom lamps than could have been imagined in ancient Mesopotamia or the Las Vegas sphere, which provides passersby with the chance to see a 112-metre-tall incandescent emoji. Urban light is now so cheap and so abundant that many consider it to be a pollutant.

Likewise, more efficient chatbots could mean that AI finds new uses (some no doubt similarly obnoxious). The ability of DeepSeek’s model to perform about as well as more compute-hungry American AI shows that data centres are more productive than previously thought, rather than less. Expect, the logic goes, more investment in data centres and so on than you did before.

Although this idea should provide tech tycoons with some solace, they still ought to worry. The Jevons paradox is a form of a broader phenomenon known as “rebound effects”. These are typically not large enough to fully offset savings from improved efficiency….Basing the bull case for AI on the Jevons paradox is, therefore, a bet not on the efficiency of the technology but on the level of demand. If adoption is being held back by price then efficiency gains will indeed lead to greater use. If technological progress raises expectations rather than reduces costs, as is typical in health care, then chatbots will make up an ever larger proportion of spending. At the moment, that looks unlikely. America’s Census Bureau finds that only 5% of American firms currently use AI and 7% have plans to adopt it in the future. Many others find the tech difficult to use or irrelevant to their line of business…(More)”.

Randomize NIH grant giving

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Vinay Prasad: “A pause in NIH study sections has been met with fear and anxiety from researchers. At many universities, including mine, professors live on soft money. No grants? If you are assistant professor, you can be asked to pack your desk. If you are a full professor, the university slowly cuts your pay until you see yourself out. Everyone talks about you afterwards, calling you a failed researcher. They laugh, a little too long, and then blink back tears as they wonder if they are next. Of course, your salary doubles in the new job and you are happier, but you are still bitter and gossiped about.

In order to apply for NIH grants, you have to write a lot of bullshit. You write specific aims and methods, collect bios from faculty and more. There is a section where you talk about how great your department and team is— this is the pinnacle of the proverbial expression, ‘to polish a turd.’ You invite people to work on your grant if they have a lot of papers or grants or both, and they agree to be on your grant even though they don’t want to talk to you ever again.

You submit your grant and they hire someone to handle your section. They find three people to review it. Ideally, they pick people who have no idea what you are doing or why it is important, and are not as successful as you, so they can hate read your proposal. If, despite that, they give you a good score, you might be discussed at study section.

The study section assembles scientists to discuss your grant. As kids who were picked last in kindergarten basketball, they focus on the minutiae. They love to nitpick small things. If someone on study section doesn’t like you, they can tank you. In contrast, if someone loves you, they can’t really single handedly fund you.

You might wonder if study section leaders are the best scientists. Rest assured. They aren’t. They are typically mid career, mediocre scientists. (This is not just a joke, data support this claim see www.drvinayprasad.com). They rarely have written extremely influential papers.

Finally, your proposal gets a percentile score. Here is the chance of funding by percentile. You might get a chance to revise your grant if you just fall short….Given that the current system is onerous and likely flawed, you would imagine that NIH leadership has repeatedly tested whether the current method is superior than say a modified lottery, aka having an initial screen and then randomly giving out the money.

Of course not. Self important people giving out someone else’s money rarely study their own processes. If study sections are no better than lottery, that would mean a lot of NIH study section officers would no longer need to work hard from home half the day, freeing up money for one more grant.

Let’s say we take $200 million and randomize it. Half of it is allocated to being given out in the traditional method, and the other half is allocated to a modified lottery. If an application is from a US University and passes a minimum screen, it is enrolled in the lottery.

Then we follow these two arms into the future. We measure publications, citations, h index, the average impact factor of journals in which the papers are published, and more. We even take a subset of the projects and blind reviewers to score the output. Can they tell which came from study section?…(More)”.

The 2026 Aid Transparency Index is canceled. Here’s what it means

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Gary Forster: “As things stand, we will not be running the 2026 Aid Transparency Index. Not because it isn’t needed. Not because it isn’t effective. But because, in spite of our best efforts, we haven’t been able to secure the funding for it.

This is not a trivial loss. The Aid Transparency Index has been the single most powerful mechanism driving improvements in the quantity and quality of aid data that is published to the International Aid Transparency Initiative, or IATI, Standard. Since 2012, every two years, it has independently assessed and ranked the transparency of the world’s 50 largest aid agencies — organizations responsible for 92% of all spending published in IATI, amounting to $237 billion in 2023 alone.

The index works because it shapes agency behavior. It has encouraged reluctant agencies to start publishing data; motivated those already engaged to improve data quantity and quality; and provided a crucial, independent check on the state of global aid transparency…(More)”.

Is This How Reddit Ends?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Matteo Wong: “The internet is growing more hostile to humans. Google results are stuffed with search-optimized spam, unhelpful advertisements, and AI slop. Amazon has become littered with undifferentiated junk. The state of social media, meanwhile—fractured, disorienting, and prone to boosting all manner of misinformation—can be succinctly described as a cesspool.

It’s with some irony, then, that Reddit has become a reservoir of humanity. The platform has itself been called a cesspool, rife with hateful rhetoric and falsehoods. But it is also known for quirky discussions and impassioned debates on any topic among its users. Does charging your brother rent, telling your mom she’s an unwanted guest, or giving your wife a performance review make you an asshole? (Redditors voted no, yes, and “everyone sucks,” respectively.) The site is where fans hash out the best rap album ever and plumbers weigh in on how to unclog a drain. As Google has begun to offer more and more vacuous SEO sites and ads in response to queries, many people have started adding reddit to their searches to find thoughtful, human-written answers: find mosquito in bedroom reddit; fix musty sponge reddit.

But now even Reddit is becoming more artificial. The platform has quietly started beta-testing Reddit Answers, what it calls an “AI-powered conversational interface.” In function and design, the feature—which is so far available only for some users in the U.S.—is basically an AI chatbot. On a new search screen accessible from the homepage, Reddit Answers takes anyone’s queries, trawls the site for relevant discussions and debates, and composes them into a response. In other words, a site that sells itself as a home for “authentic human connection” is now giving humans the option to interact with an algorithm instead…(More)”.

Flipping data on its head: Differing conceptualisations of data and the implications for actioning Indigenous data sovereignty principles

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Stephanie Cunningham-Reimann et al: “Indigenous data sovereignty is of global concern. The power of data through its multitude of uses can cause harm to Indigenous Peoples, communities, organisations and Nations in Canada and globally. Indigenous research principles play a vital role in guiding researchers, scholars and policy makers in their careers and roles. We define data, data sovereignty principles, ways of practicing Indigenous research principles, and recommendations for applying and actioning Indigenous data sovereignty through culturally safe self-reflection, interpersonal and reciprocal relationships built upon respect, reciprocity, relevance, responsibility and accountability. Research should be co-developed, co-led, and co-disseminated in partnership with Indigenous Peoples, communities, organisations and/or nations to build capacity, support self-determination, and reduce harms produced through the analysis and dissemination of research findings. OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access & Possession), OCAS (Ownership, Control, Access & Stewardship), Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principles in conjunction the 4Rs (respect, relevance, reciprocity & responsibility) and cultural competency including self-examination of the 3Ps (power, privilege, and positionality) of researchers, scholars and policy makers can be challenging, but will amplify the voices and understandings of Indigenous research by implementing Indigenous data sovereignty in Canada…(More)”

AI Commons: nourishing alternatives to Big Tech monoculture

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Joana Varon, Sasha Costanza-Chock, Mariana Tamari, Berhan Taye, and Vanessa Koetz: “‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) has become a buzzword all around the globe, with tech companies, research institutions, and governments all vying to define and shape its future. How can we escape the current context of AI development where certain power forces are pushing for models that, ultimately, automate inequalities and threaten socio-enviromental diversities? What if we could redefine AI? What if we could shift its production from a capitalist model to a more disruptive, inclusive, and decentralized one? Can we imagine and foster an AI Commons ecosystem that challenges the current dominant neoliberal logic of an AI arms race? An ecosystem encompassing researchers, developers, and activists who are thinking about AI from decolonial, transfeminist, antiracist, indigenous, decentralized, post-capitalist and/or socio-environmental justice perspectives?

This fieldscan research, commissioned by One Project and conducted by Coding Rights, aims to understand the (possibly) emerging “AI Common” ecosystem. Focused on key entities (organizations, cooperatives and collectives, networks, companies, projects, and others) from Africa, the Americas, and Europe advancing alternative possible AI futures, the authors identify 234 entities that are advancing the AI Commons ecosystem. The report finds powerful communities of practice, groups, and organizations producing nuanced criticism of the Big Tech-driven AI development ecosystem and, most importantly, imagining, developing, and, at times, deploying an alternative AI technology that’s informed and guided by the principles of decoloniality, feminism, antiracist, and post-capitalist AI systems…(More)”.

Developing a theory of robust democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Eva Sørensen and Mark E. Warren: “While many democratic theorists recognise the necessity of reforming liberal democracies to keep pace with social change, they rarely consider what enables such reform. In this conceptual article, we suggest that liberal democracies are politically robust when they are able to continuously adapt and innovate how they operate when doing so is necessary to continue to serve key democratic functions. These functions include securing the empowered inclusion of those affected, collective agenda setting and will formation, and the making of joint decisions. Three current challenges highlight the urgency of adapting and innovating liberal democracies to become more politically robust: an increasingly assertive political culture, the digitalisation of political communication and increasing global interdependencies. A democratic theory of political robustness emphasises the need to strengthen the capacity of liberal democracies to adapt and innovate in response to changes, just as it helps to frame the necessary adaptations and innovations in times such as the present…(More)”

Path to Public Innovation Playbook

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Playbook by Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation: “…a practical, example-rich guide for city leaders at any stage of their innovation journey. Crucially, the playbook offers learnings from the past 10-plus years of government innovation that can help municipalities take existing efforts to the next level…

Innovation has always started with defining major challenges in cooperation with residents. But in recent years, cities have increasingly tried to go further by working to unite every local actor around transformational changes that will be felt for generations. What they’re finding is that by establishing a North Star for action—the playbook calls them Ambitious Impactful Missions (AIMs)—they’re achieving better outcomes. And the playbook shows them how to find that North Star.

“If you limit yourself to thinking about a single priority, that can lead to a focus on just the things right in front of you,” explains Amanda Daflos, executive director of the Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation and the former Chief Innovation Officer and director of the i-team in Los Angeles. In contrast, she says, a more ambitious, mission-style approach recognizes that “the whole city has to work on this.”

For instance, in Reykjavik, Iceland, local leaders are determined to improve outcomes for children. But rather than limiting the scope or scale of their efforts to one slice of that pursuit, they thought bigger, tapping a wide array of actors from the Department of Education to the Department of Welfare to pursue a vision called “A Better City for Children.” At its core, this effort is about delivering a massive array of new and improved services for kids and ensuring those services are not interrupted at any point in a young person’s life. Specific interventions range from at-home student counseling, to courses on improving communication within households, to strategy sessions for parents whose children have anxiety. 

More noteworthy than the individual solutions is that this ambitious effort has shown signs of activating the kind of broad coalition needed to make long-term change. In fact, the larger vision started under then-Mayor Dagur Eggertsson, has been maintained by his successor, Mayor Ein­ar Þor­steinsson, and has recently shown signs of expansion. The playbook provides mayors with a framework for developing their own blueprints for big change…(More)”.