Antoine Dubois, Emilio Zagheni, Kiran Garimella, and Ingmar Weber at arXiv: “Migrants’ assimilation is a major challenge for European societies, in part because of the sudden surge of refugees in recent years and in part because of long-term demographic trends. In this paper, we use Facebook’s data for advertisers to study the levels of assimilation of Arabic-speaking migrants in Germany, as seen through the interests they express online. Our results indicate a gradient of assimilation along demographic lines, language spoken and country of origin. Given the difficulty to collect timely migration data, in particular for traits related to cultural assimilation, the methods that we develop and the results that we provide open new lines of research that computational social scientists are well-positioned to address….(More)”.
Rights-Based and Tech-Driven: Open Data, Freedom of Information, and the Future of Government Transparency
Beth Noveck at the Yale Human Rights and Development Journal: “Open data policy mandates that government proactively publish its data online for the public to reuse. It is a radically different approach to transparency than traditional right-to-know strategies as embodied in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) legislation in that it involves ex ante rather than ex post disclosure of whole datasets. Although both open data and FOIA deal with information sharing, the normative essence of open data is participation rather than litigation. By fostering public engagement, open data shifts the relationship between state and citizen from a monitorial to a collaborative one, centered around using information to solve problems together. This Essay explores the theory and practice of open data in comparison to FOIA and highlights its uses as a tool for advancing human rights, saving lives, and strengthening democracy. Although open data undoubtedly builds upon the fifty-year legal tradition of the right to know about the workings of one’s government, open data does more than advance government accountability. Rather, it is a distinctly twenty-first century governing practice borne out of the potential of big data to help solve society’s biggest problems. Thus, this Essay charts a thoughtful path toward a twenty-first century transparency regime that takes advantage of and blends the strengths of open data’s collaborative and innovation-centric approach and the adversarial and monitorial tactics of freedom of information regimes….(More)”.
How AI Could Help the Public Sector
Emma Martinho-Truswell in the Harvard Business Review: “A public school teacher grading papers faster is a small example of the wide-ranging benefits that artificial intelligence could bring to the public sector. A.I could be used to make government agencies more efficient, to improve the job satisfaction of public servants, and to increase the quality of services offered. Talent and motivation are wasted doing routine tasks when they could be doing more creative ones.
Applications of artificial intelligence to the public sector are broad and growing, with early experiments taking place around the world. In addition to education, public servants are using AI to help them make welfare payments and immigration decisions, detect fraud, plan new infrastructure projects, answer citizen queries, adjudicate bail hearings, triage health care cases, and establish drone paths. The decisions we are making now will shape the impact of artificial intelligence on these and other government functions. Which tasks will be handed over to machines? And how should governments spend the labor time saved by artificial intelligence?
So far, the most promising applications of artificial intelligence use machine learning, in which a computer program learns and improves its own answers to a question by creating and iterating algorithms from a collection of data. This data is often in enormous quantities and from many sources, and a machine learning algorithm can find new connections among data that humans might not have expected. IBM’s Watson, for example, is a treatment recommendation-bot, sometimes finding treatments that human doctors might not have considered or known about.
Machine learning program may be better, cheaper, faster, or more accurate than humans at tasks that involve lots of data, complicated calculations, or repetitive tasks with clear rules. Those in public service, and in many other big organizations, may recognize part of their job in that description. The very fact that government workers are often following a set of rules — a policy or set of procedures — already presents many opportunities for automation.
To be useful, a machine learning program does not need to be better than a human in every case. In my work, we expect that much of the “low hanging fruit” of government use of machine learning will be as a first line of analysis or decision-making. Human judgment will then be critical to interpret results, manage harder cases, or hear appeals.
When the work of public servants can be done in less time, a government might reduce its staff numbers, and return money saved to taxpayers — and I am sure that some governments will pursue that option. But it’s not necessarily the one I would recommend. Governments could instead choose to invest in the quality of its services. They can re-employ workers’ time towards more rewarding work that requires lateral thinking, empathy, and creativity — all things at which humans continue to outperform even the most sophisticated AI program….(More)”.
Algorithms show potential in measuring diagnostic errors using big data
Greg Slabodkin at Information Management: “While the problem of diagnostic errors is widespread in medicine, with an estimated 12 million Americans affected annually, a new approach to quantifying and monitoring these errors has the potential to prevent serious patient injuries, including disability or death.
“The single biggest impediment to making progress is the lack of operational measures of diagnostic errors,” says David Newman-Toker, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute Center for Diagnostic Excellence. “It’s very difficult to measure because we haven’t had the tools to look for it in a systematic way. And most of the methods that look for diagnostics errors involve training people to do labor-intensive chart reviews.”
However, a new method—called the Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE)—uncovers misdiagnosis-related harms using specific algorithms and big data. The automated approach could replace labor-intensive reviews of medical records by hospital staff, which researchers contend are limited by poor clinical documentation, low reliability and inherent bias.
According to Newman-Toker, SPADE utilizes statistical analyses to identify critical patterns that measure the rate of diagnostic error by analyzing large, existing clinical and claims datasets containing hundreds of thousands of patient visits. Specifically, algorithms are leveraged to look for common symptoms prompting a physician visit and then pairing them with one or more diseases that could be misdiagnosed in those clinical contexts….(More)”.
Is Social Media Good or Bad for Democracy?
Essay by Cass R. Sunstein, as part of a series by Facebook on social media and democracy: “On balance, the question of whether social media platforms are good for democracy is easy. On balance, they are not merely good; they are terrific. For people to govern themselves, they need to have information. They also need to be able to convey it to others. Social media platforms make that tons easier.
There is a subtler point as well. When democracies are functioning properly, people’s sufferings and challenges are not entirely private matters. Social media platforms help us alert one another to a million and one different problems. In the process, the existence of social media can prod citizens to seek solutions.
Consider the remarkable finding, by the economist Amartya Sen, that in the history of the world, there has never been a famine in a system with a democratic press and free elections. A central reason is that famines are a product not only of a scarcity of food, but also a nation’s failure to provide solutions. When the press is free, and when leaders are elected, leaders have a strong incentive to help.
Mental illness, chronic pain, loss of employment, vulnerability to crime, drugs in the family – information about all these spread via social media, and they can be reduced with sensible policies. When people can talk to each other, and disclose what they know to public officials, the whole world might change in a hurry.
But celebrations can be awfully boring, so let’s hold the applause. Are automobiles good for transportation? Absolutely, but in the United States alone, over 35,000 people died in crashes in 2016.
Social media platforms are terrific for democracy in many ways, but pretty bad in others. And they remain a work-in-progress, not only because of new entrants, but also because the not-so-new ones (including Facebook) continue to evolve. What John Dewey said about my beloved country is true for social media as well: “The United States are not yet made; they are not a finished fact to be categorically assessed.”
For social media and democracy, the equivalents of car crashes include false reports (“fake news”) and the proliferation of information cocoons — and as a result, an increase in fragmentation, polarization and extremism. If you live in an information cocoon, you will believe many things that are false, and you will fail to learn countless things that are true. That’s awful for democracy. And as we have seen, those with specific interests — including politicians and nations, such as Russia, seeking to disrupt democratic processes — can use social media to promote those interests.
This problem is linked to the phenomenon of group polarization — which takes hold when like-minded people talk to one another and end up thinking a more extreme version of what they thought before they started to talk. In fact that’s a common outcome. At best, it’s a problem. At worst, it’s dangerous….(More)”.
How the Data That Internet Companies Collect Can Be Used for the Public Good
Stefaan G. Verhulst and Andrew Young at Harvard Business Review: “…In particular, the vast streams of data generated through social media platforms, when analyzed responsibly, can offer insights into societal patterns and behaviors. These types of behaviors are hard to generate with existing social science methods. All this information poses its own problems, of complexity and noise, of risks to privacy and security, but it also represents tremendous potential for mobilizing new forms of intelligence.
In a recent report, we examine ways to harness this potential while limiting and addressing the challenges. Developed in collaboration with Facebook, the report seeks to understand how public and private organizations can join forces to use social media data — through data collaboratives — to mitigate and perhaps solve some our most intractable policy dilemmas.
Data Collaboratives: Public-Private Partnerships for Our Data Age
For all of data’s potential to address public challenges, most data generated today is collected by the private sector. Typically ensconced in corporate databases, and tightly held in order to maintain competitive advantage, this data contains tremendous possible insights and avenues for policy innovation. But because the analytical expertise brought to bear on it is narrow, and limited by private ownership and access restrictions, its vast potential often goes untapped.
Data collaboratives offer a way around this limitation. They represent an emerging public-private partnership model, in which participants from different areas , including the private sector, government, and civil society , can come together to exchange data and pool analytical expertise in order to create new public value. While still an emerging practice, examples of such partnerships now exist around the world, across sectors and public policy domains….
Professionalizing the Responsible Use of Private Data for Public Good
For all its promise, the practice of data collaboratives remains ad hoc and limited. In part, this is a result of the lack of a well-defined, professionalized concept of data stewardship within corporations. Today, each attempt to establish a cross-sector partnership built on the analysis of social media data requires significant and time-consuming efforts, and businesses rarely have personnel tasked with undertaking such efforts and making relevant decisions.
As a consequence, the process of establishing data collaboratives and leveraging privately held data for evidence-based policy making and service delivery is onerous, generally one-off, not informed by best practices or any shared knowledge base, and prone to dissolution when the champions involved move on to other functions.
By establishing data stewardship as a corporate function, recognized within corporations as a valued responsibility, and by creating the methods and tools needed for responsible data-sharing, the practice of data collaboratives can become regularized, predictable, and de-risked.
If early efforts toward this end — from initiatives such as Facebook’s Data for Good efforts in the social media space and MasterCard’s Data Philanthropy approach around finance data — are meaningfully scaled and expanded, data stewards across the private sector can act as change agents responsible for determining what data to share and when, how to protect data, and how to act on insights gathered from the data.
Still, many companies (and others) continue to balk at the prospect of sharing “their” data, which is an understandable response given the reflex to guard corporate interests. But our research has indicated that many benefits can accrue not only to data recipients but also to those who share it. Data collaboration is not a zero-sum game.
With support from the Hewlett Foundation, we are embarking on a two-year project toward professionalizing data stewardship (and the use of data collaboratives) and establishing well-defined data responsibility approaches. We invite others to join us in working to transform this practice into a widespread, impactful means of leveraging private-sector assets, including social media data, to create positive public-sector outcomes around the world….(More)”.
Open Data Risk Assessment
Report by the Future of Privacy Forum: “The transparency goals of the open data movement serve important social, economic, and democratic functions in cities like Seattle. At the same time, some municipal datasets about the city and its citizens’ activities carry inherent risks to individual privacy when shared publicly. In 2016, the City of Seattle declared in its Open Data Policy that the city’s data would be “open by preference,” except when doing so may affect individual privacy. To ensure its Open Data Program effectively protects individuals, Seattle committed to performing an annual risk assessment and tasked the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) with creating and deploying an initial privacy risk assessment methodology for open data.
This Report provides tools and guidance to the City of Seattle and other municipalities navigating the complex policy, operational, technical, organizational, and ethical standards that support privacyprotective open data programs. Although there is a growing body of research regarding open data privacy, open data managers and departmental data owners need to be able to employ a standardized methodology for assessing the privacy risks and benefits of particular datasets internally, without access to a bevy of expert statisticians, privacy lawyers, or philosophers. By optimizing its internal processes and procedures, developing and investing in advanced statistical disclosure control strategies, and following a flexible, risk-based assessment process, the City of Seattle – and other municipalities – can build mature open data programs that maximize the utility and openness of civic data while minimizing privacy risks to individuals and addressing community concerns about ethical challenges, fairness, and equity.
This Report first describes inherent privacy risks in an open data landscape, with an emphasis on potential harms related to re-identification, data quality, and fairness. To address these risks, the Report includes a Model Open Data Benefit-Risk Analysis (“Model Analysis”). The Model Analysis evaluates the types of data contained in a proposed open dataset, the potential benefits – and concomitant risks – of releasing the dataset publicly, and strategies for effective de-identification and risk mitigation. This holistic assessment guides city officials to determine whether to release the dataset openly, in a limited access environment, or to withhold it from publication (absent countervailing public policy considerations). …(More)”.
After Big Data: The Coming Age of “Big Indicators”
Andrew Zolli at the Stanford Social Innovation Review: “Consider, for a moment, some of the most pernicious challenges facing humanity today: the increasing prevalence of natural disasters; the systemic overfishing of the world’s oceans; the clear-cutting of primeval forests; the maddening persistence of poverty; and above all, the accelerating effects of global climate change.
Each item in this dark litany inflicts suffering on the world in its own, awful way. Yet as a group, they share some common characteristics. Each problem is messy, with lots of moving parts. Each is riddled with perverse incentives, which can lead local actors to behave in a way that is not in the common interest. Each is opaque, with dynamics that are only partially understood, even by experts; each can, as a result, often be made worse by seemingly rational and well-intentioned interventions. When things do go wrong, each has consequences that diverge dramatically from our day-to-day experiences, making their full effects hard to imagine, predict, and rehearse. And each is global in scale, raising questions about who has the legal obligation to act—and creating incentives for leaders to disavow responsibility (and sometimes even question the legitimacy of the problem itself).
With dynamics like these, it’s little wonder systems theorists label these kinds of problems “wicked” or even “super wicked.” It’s even less surprising that these challenges remain, by and large, externalities to the global system—inadequately measured, perennially underinvested in, and poorly accounted for—until their consequences spill disastrously and expensively into view.
For real progress to occur, we’ve got to move these externalities into the global system, so that we can fully assess their costs, and so that we can sufficiently incentivize and reward stakeholders for addressing them and penalize them if they don’t. And that’s going to require a revolution in measurement, reporting, and financial instrumentation—the mechanisms by which we connect global problems with the resources required to address them at scale.
Thankfully, just such a revolution is under way.
It’s a complex story with several moving parts, but it begins with important new technical developments in three critical areas of technology: remote sensing and big data, artificial intelligence, and cloud computing.
Remote sensing and big data allow us to collect unprecedented streams of observations about our planet and our impacts upon it, and dramatic advances in AI enable us to extract the deeper meaning and patterns contained in those vast data streams. The rise of the cloud empowers anyone with an Internet connection to access and interact with these insights, at a fraction of the traditional cost.
In the years to come, these technologies will shift much of the current conversation focused on big data to one focused on “big indicators”—highly detailed, continuously produced, global indicators that track change in the health of the Earth’s most important systems, in real time. Big indicators will form an important mechanism for guiding human action, allow us to track the impact of our collective actions and interventions as never before, enable better and more timely decisions, transform reporting, and empower new kinds of policy and financing instruments. In short, they will reshape how we tackle a number of global problems, and everyone—especially nonprofits, NGOs, and actors within the social and environmental sectors—will play a role in shaping and using them….(More)”.
Improving refugee integration through data-driven algorithmic assignment
Kirk Bansak, et al in Science Magazine: “Developed democracies are settling an increased number of refugees, many of whom face challenges integrating into host societies. We developed a flexible data-driven algorithm that assigns refugees across resettlement locations to improve integration outcomes. The algorithm uses a combination of supervised machine learning and optimal matching to discover and leverage synergies between refugee characteristics and resettlement sites.
The algorithm was tested on historical registry data from two countries with different assignment regimes and refugee populations, the United States and Switzerland. Our approach led to gains of roughly 40 to 70%, on average, in refugees’ employment outcomes relative to current assignment practices. This approach can provide governments with a practical and cost-efficient policy tool that can be immediately implemented within existing institutional structures….(More)”.
Urban Big Data: City Management and Real Estate Markets
Report by Richard Barkham, Sheharyar Bokhari and Albert Saiz: “In this report, we discuss recent trends in the application of urban big data and their impact on real estate markets. We expect such technologies to improve quality of life and the productivity of cities over the long run.
We forecast that smart city technologies will reinforce the primacy of the most successful global metropolises at least for a decade or more. A few select metropolises in emerging countries may also leverage these technologies to leapfrog on the provision of local public services.
In the long run, all cities throughout the urban system will end up adopting successful and cost-effective smart city initiatives. Nevertheless, smaller-scale interventions are likely to crop up everywhere, even in the short run. Such targeted programs are more likely to improve conditions in blighted or relatively deprived neighborhoods, which could generate gentrification and higher valuations there. It is unclear whether urban information systems will have a centralizing or suburbanizing impact. They are likely to make denser urban centers more attractive, but they are also bound to make suburban or exurban locations more accessible…(More)”.