What Your Tweets Say About You


at the New Yorker: “How much can your tweets reveal about you? Judging by the last nine hundred and seventy-two words that I used on Twitter, I’m about average when it comes to feeling upbeat and being personable, and I’m less likely than most people to be depressed or angry. That, at least, is the snapshot provided by AnalyzeWords, one of the latest creations from James Pennebaker, a psychologist at the University of Texas who studies how language relates to well-being and personality. One of Pennebaker’s most famous projects is a computer program called Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (L.I.W.C.), which looks at the words we use, and in what frequency and context, and uses this information to gauge our psychological states and various aspects of our personality….

Take a study, out last month, from a group of researchers based at the University of Pennsylvania. The psychologist Johannes Eichstaedt and his colleagues analyzed eight hundred and twenty-six million tweets across fourteen hundred American counties. (The counties contained close to ninety per cent of the U.S. population.) Then, using lists of words—some developed by Pennebaker, others by Eichstaedt’s team—that can be reliably associated with anger, anxiety, social engagement, and positive and negative emotions, they gave each county an emotional profile. Finally, they asked a simple question: Could those profiles help determine which counties were likely to have more deaths from heart disease?

The answer, it turned out, was yes….

The researchers have a theory: they suggest that “the language of Twitter may be a window into the aggregated and powerful effects of the community context.” They point to other epidemiological studies which have shown that general facts about a community, such as its “social cohesion and social capital,” have consequences for the health of individuals. Broadly speaking, people who live in poorer, more fragmented communities are less healthy than people living in richer, integrated ones.“When we do a sub-analysis, we find that the power that Twitter has is in large part accounted for by community and socioeconomic variables,” Eichstaedt told me when we spoke over Skype. In short, a young person’s negative, angry, and stressed-out tweets might reflect his or her stress-inducing environment—and that same environment may have negative health repercussions for other, older members of the same community….(More)”

Using open legislative data to map bill co-sponsorship networks in 15 countries


François Briatte at OpeningParliament.org: “A few years back, Kamil Gregor published a post under the title “Visualizing politics: Network analysis of bill sponsors”. His post, which focused on the lower chamber of the Czech Parliament, showed how basic social network analysis can support the exploration of parliamentary work, by revealing the ties that members of parliament create between each other through the co-sponsorship of private bills….In what follows, I would like to quickly report on a small research project that I have developed over the years, under the name “parlnet”.

Legislative data on bill co-sponsorship

This project looks at bill co-sponsorship networks in European countries. Many parliaments allow their members to co-sponsor each other’s private bills, which makes it possible to represent these parliaments as collaborative networks, where a tie exists between two MPs if they have co-sponsored legislation together.

This idea is not new: it was pioneered by James Fowler in the United States, and has been the subject of extensive research in American politics, both on the U.S. Congress and on state legislatures. Similar research also exists on the bill co-sponsorship networks of parliaments in Argentina, Chile andRomania.

Inspired by this research and by Baptiste Coulmont’s visualisation of the French lower chamber, I surveyed the parliamentary websites of the following countries:

  • all 28 current members of the European Union ;
  • 4 members of the EFTA: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland

This search returned 19 parliamentary chambers from 15 countries for which it was (relatively) easy to extract legislative data, either through open data portals like data.riksdagen.se in Sweden ordata.stortinget.no in Norway, or from official parliamentary websites directly….After splitting the data into legislative periods separated by nationwide elections, I was able to draw a large collection of networks showing bill co-sponsorship in these 19 chambers….In this graph, each point (or node) is a Belgian MP, and each tie between two MPs indicates that they have co-sponsored at least one bill together. The colors and abbreviations used in the graph are party-related codes, which combine information on the parliamentary group and linguistic community of each MP.Because this kind of graph can be interesting to explore in more detail, I have also built interactive visualizations out of them, in order to show more detailed information on the MPs who participate in bill cosposorship…

The parlnet project was coded in R, and its code is public so that it might benefit from external contributions. The list of countries and chambers that it covers is not exhaustive: in some cases like Portugal, I simply failed to retrieve the data. More talented coders might therefore be able to add to the current database.

Bill cosponsorship networks illustrate how open legislative data provided by parliaments can be turned into interactive tools that easily convey some information about parliamentary work, including, but not limited to:

  • the role of parliamentary party leaders in managing the legislation produced by their groups
  • the impact of partisan discipline and ideology on legislative collaboration between MPs
  • the extent of cross-party cooperation in various parliamentary environments and chambers… (More)

UNESCO demonstrates global impact through new transparency portal


“Opendata.UNESCO.org  is intended to present comprehensive, quality and timely information about UNESCO’s projects, enabling users to find information by country/region, funding source, and sector and providing comprehensive project data, including budget, expenditure, completion status, implementing organization, project documents, and more. It publishes program and financial information that are in line with UN system-experience of the IATI (International Aid Transparency Initiative) standards and other relevant transparency initiatives. UNESCO is now part of more than 230 organizations that have published to the IATI Registry, which brings together donor and developing countries, civil society organizations and other experts in aid information who are committed to working together to increase the transparency of aid.

Since its creation 70 years ago, UNESCO has tirelessly championed the causes of education, culture, natural sciences, social and human sciences, communication and information, globally. For instance – started in March 2010, the program for the Enhancement of Literacy in Afghanistan (ELA) benefited from a $19.5 million contribution by Japan. It aimed to improve the level of literacy, numeracy and vocational skills of the adult population in 70 districts of 15 provinces of Afghanistan. Over the next three years, until April 2013, the ELA programme helped some 360,000 adult learners in General Literacy compotency. An interactive map allows for an easy identification of UNESCO’s high-impact programs, and up-to-date information of current and future aid allocations within and across countries.

Public participation and interactivity are key to the success of any open data project. http://Opendata.UNESCO.org will evolve as Member States and partners will get involved, by displaying data on their own websites and sharing data among different networks, building and sharing applications, providing feedback, comments, and recommendations. …(More)”

Data for policy: when the haystack is made of needles. A call for contributions


Diana Vlad-Câlcic at the European Commission: “If policy-making is ‘whatever government chooses to do or not to do’ (Th. Dye), then how do governments actually decide? Evidence-based policy-making is not a new answer to this question, but it is constantly challenging both policy-makers and scientists to sharpen their thinking, their tools and their responsiveness.  The European Commission has recognised this and has embedded in its processes, namely through Impact Assessment, policy monitoring and evaluation, an evidence-informed decision-making approach.

With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk. (John von Neumann)

New data technologies raise the bar high for advanced modelling, dynamic visualisation, real-time data flows and a variety of data sources, from sensors, to cell phones or the Internet as such. An abundance of (big) data, a haystack made of needles, but do public administrations have the right tools and skills to exploit it? How much of it adds real value to established statistics and to scientific evidence? Are the high hopes and the high expectations partly just hype? And what lessons can we learn from experience?

To explore these questions, the European Commission is launching a study with the Oxford Internet Institute, Technopolis and CEPS  on ‘Data for policy: big data and other innovative data-driven approaches for evidence-informed policymaking’. As a first step, the study will collect examples of initiatives in public institutions at national and international level, where innovative data technologies contribute to the policy process. It will eventually develop case-studies for EU policies.

Contribute to the collective reflection by sharing with us good practices and examples you have from other public administrations. Follow the developments of the study also on Twitter @data4policyEU

Big Data Is an Economic Justice Issue, Not Just a Privacy Problem


in the Huffington Post: “The control of personal data by “big data” companies is not just an issue of privacy but is becoming a critical issue of economic justice, argues a new report issued by the organization Data Justice>, which itself is being publicly launched in conjunction with the report. ..

At the same time, big data is fueling economic concentration across our economy. As a handful of data platforms generate massive amounts of user data, the barriers to entry rise, since potential competitors have little data themselves to entice advertisers compared with the incumbents, who have both the concentrated processing power and the supply of user data to dominate particular sectors. With little competition, companies end up with little incentive to either protect user privacy or share the economic value of that user data with the consumers generating those profits.

The report argues for a threefold approach to making big data work for everyone in the economy, not just for the big data platforms’ shareholders:

  • First, regulators need to strengthen user control of their own data by both requiring explicit consent for all uses of the data and better informing users of how it’s being used and how companies profit from that data.
  • Second, regulators need to factor control of data into merger review, and to initiate antitrust actions against companies like Google where monopoly control of a sector like search advertising has been established.
  • Third, policymakers should restrict practices that harm consumers, including banning price discrimination where consumers are not informed of all discount options available and bringing the participation of big data platforms in marketing financial services under the regulation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Data Justice itself has been founded as an organization “to promote public education and new alliances to challenge the danger of big data to workers, consumers and the public.” It will work to educate the public, policymakers and organizational allies on how big data is contributing to economic inequality in the economy. Its new website at datajustice.org is intended to bring together a wide range of resources highlighting the economic justice aspects of big data.”

31 cities agree to use EU-funded open innovation platform for better smart cities’ services


European Commission Press Release: “At CEBIT, 25 cities from 6 EU countries (Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Portugal and Spain) and 6 cities from Brazil will present Open & Agile Smart Cities Task Force (OASC), an initiative making it easier for city councils  and startups to improve smart city services (such as transport, energy efficiency, environmental or e-health services). This will be achieved thanks to FIWARE, an EU-funded, open source platform and cloud-based building blocks developed in the EU that can be used to develop a huge range of applications, from Smart Cities to eHealth, and from transport to disaster management. Many applications have already been built using FIWARE – from warnings of earthquakes to preventing food waste to Smartaxi apps. Find a full list of cities in the Background.

The OASC deal will allow cities to share their open data (collected from sensors measuring, for example, traffic flows) so that startups can develop apps and tools that benefit all citizens (for example, an app with traffic information for people on the move). Moreover, these systems will be shared between cities (so, an app with transport information developed in city A can be also adopted by city B, without the latter having to develop it from scratch); FIWARE will also give startups and app developers in these cities access to a global market for smart city services.

Cities from across the globe are trying to make the most of open innovation. This will allow them to include a variety of stakeholders in their activities (services are increasingly connected to other systems and innovative startups are a big part of this trend) and encourage a competitive yet attractive market for developers, thus reducing costs, increasing quality and avoiding vendor lock-in….(More)”

Our New Three Rs: Rigor, Relevance, and Readability


Article by Stephen J. Del Rosso in Governance: “…Because of the dizzying complexity of the contemporary world, the quest for a direct relationship between academic scholarship and its policy utility is both quixotic and unnecessary. The 2013 U.S. Senate’s vote to prohibit funding for political science projects through the National Science Foundation, except for those certified “as promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States,” revealed a fundamental misreading of the nonlinear path between idea and policy. Rather than providing a clear blueprint for addressing emergent or long-standing challenges, a more feasible role for academic scholarship is what political scientist Roland Paris describes as helping to “order the world in which officials operate.” Scholarly works can “influence practitioners’ understandings of what is possible or desirable in a particular policy field or set of circumstances,” he believes, by “creating operational frameworks for … identifying options and implementing policies.”

It is sometimes claimed that think tanks should play the main role in conveying scholarly insights to policymakers. But, however they may have mastered the sound bite, the putative role of think tanks as effective transmission belts for policy-relevant ideas is limited by their lack of academic rigor and systematic peer review. There is also a tendency, particularly among some “Inside the Beltway” experts, to trim their sails to the prevailing political winds and engage in self-censorship to keep employment options open in current or future presidential administrations. Scholarship’s comparative advantage in the marketplace of ideas is also evident in terms of its anticipatory function—the ability to loosen the intellectual bolts for promising policies not quite ready for implementation. A classic example is Swedish Nobel laureate Gunner Myrdal’s 1944 study of race relations, The American Dilemma, which was largely ignored and even disavowed by its sponsors for over a decade until it proved essential to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Moreover, it should also be noted, rather than providing a detailed game plan for addressing the problem of race in the country, Myrdal’s work was a quintessential example of the power of scholarship to frame critically important issues.

To bridge the scholarship–policy gap, academics must balance rigor and relevance with a third “R”—readability. There is no shortage of important scholarly work that goes unnoticed or unread because of its presentation. Scholars interested in having influence beyond the ivory tower need to combine their pursuit of disciplinary requirements with efforts to make their work more intelligible and accessible to a broader audience. For example, new forms of dissemination, such as blogs and other social media innovations, provide policy-relevant scholars with ample opportunities to supplement more traditional academic outlets. The recent pushback from the editors of the International Studies Association’s journals to the announced prohibition on their blogging is one indication that the cracks in the old system are already appearing.

At the risk of oversimplification, there are three basic tribes populating the political science field. One tribe comprises those who “get it” when it comes to the importance of policy relevance, a second eschews such engagement with the real world in favor of knowledge for knowledge’s sake, and a third is made up of anxious untenured assistant professors who seek to follow the path that will best provide them with secure employment. If war, as was famously said, is too important to be left to the generals, then the future of the political science field is too important to be left to the intellectual ostriches who bury their heads in self-referential esoterica. However, the first tribe needs to be supported, and the third tribe needs to be shown that there is professional value in engaging with the world, both to enlighten and, perhaps more importantly, to provoke—a sentiment the policy-relevant scholar and inveterate provocateur, Huntington, would surely have endorsed…(More)”

Data scientists rejoice! There’s an online marketplace selling algorithms from academics


SiliconRepublic: “Algorithmia, an online marketplace that connects computer science researchers’ algorithms with developers who may have uses for them, has exited its private beta.

Algorithms are essential to our online experience. Google uses them to determine which search results are the most relevant. Facebook uses them to decide what should appear in your news feed. Netflix uses them to make movie recommendations.

Founded in 2013, Algorithmia could be described as an app store for algorithms, with over 800 of them available in its library. These algorithms provide the means of completing various tasks in the fields of machine learning, audio and visual processing, and computer vision.

Algorithmia found a way to monetise algorithms by creating a platform where academics can share their creations and charge a royalty fee per use, while developers and data scientists can request specific algorithms in return for a monetary reward. One such suggestion is for ‘punctuation prediction’, which would insert correct punctuation and capitalisation in speech-to-text translation.

While it’s not the first algorithm marketplace online, Algorithmia will accept and sell any type of algorithm and host them on its servers. What this means is that developers need only add a simple piece of code to their software in order to send a query to Algorithmia’s servers, so the algorithm itself doesn’t have to be integrated in its entirety….

Computer science researchers can spend years developing algorithms, only for them to be published in a scientific journal never to be read by software engineers.

Algorithmia intends to create a community space where academics and engineers can meet to discuss and refine these algorithms for practical use. A voting and commenting system on the site will allow users to engage and even share insights on how contributions can be improved.

To that end, Algorithmia’s ultimate goal is to advance the development of algorithms as well as their discovery and use….(More)”

Who Retweets Whom: How Digital And Legacy Journalists Interact on Twitter


Paper by Michael L. Barthel, Ruth Moon, and William Mari published by the Tow Center: “When bloggers and citizen journalists became fixtures of the U.S. media environment, traditional print journalists responded with a critique, as this latest Tow Center brief says. According to mainstream reporters, the interlopers were “unprofessional, unethical, and overly dependent on the very mainstream media they criticized. In a 2013 poll of journalists, 51 percent agreed that citizen journalism is not real journalism”.

However, the digital media environment, a space for easy interaction has provided opportunities for journalists of all stripes to vault the barriers between legacy and digital sectors; if not collaborating, then perhaps communicating at least.

This brief by three PhD candidates at The University of Washington, Michael L. Barthel, Ruth Moon and William Mari, takes a snapshot of how fifteen political journalists from BuzzFeed, Politico and The New York Times, interact (representing digital, hybrid and legacy outlets respectively). The researchers place those interactions in the context of reporters’ longstanding traditions of gossip, goading, collaboration and competition.

They found tribalism, pronounced most strongly in the legacy outlet, but present across each grouping. They found hierarchy and status-boosting. But those phenomena were not absolute; there were also instances of co-operation, sharing and mutual benefit. None-the-less, by these indicators at least; there was a clear pecking order: Digital and hybrid organizations’ journalists paid “more attention to traditional than digital publications”.

You can download your copy here (pdf).”

Study to examine Australian businesses’ use of government data


ComputerWorld: “The New York University’s GovLab and the federal Department of Communications have embarked on a study of how Australian organisations are employing government data sets.

The ‘Open Data 500’ study was launched today at the Locate15 conference. It aims to provide a basis for assessing the value of open data and encourage the development of new businesses based on open data, as well as encourage discussion about how to make government data more useful to businesses and not-for-profit organisations.

The study is part of a series of studies taking place under the auspices of the OD500 Global Network.

“This study will help ensure the focus of Government is on the publication of high value datasets, with an emphasis on quality rather than quantity,” a statement issued by the Department of Communications said.

“Open Data 500 advances the government’s policy of increasing the number of high value public datasets in Australia in an effort to drive productivity and innovation, as well as its commitment to greater consultation with private sector stakeholders on open data,” Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in remarks prepared for the Locate 15 conference….(More)”