Incentivising open ecological data using blockchain technology

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Robert John Lewis, Kjell-Erik Marstein & John-Arvid Grytnes: “Mindsets concerning data as proprietary are common, especially where data production is resource intensive. Fears of competing research in concert with loss of exclusivity to hard earned data are pervasive. This is for good reason given that current reward structures in academia focus overwhelmingly on journal prestige and high publication counts, and not accredited publication of open datasets. And, then there exists reluctance of researchers to cede control to centralised repositories, citing concern over the lack of trust and transparency over the way complex data are used and interpreted.

To begin to resolve these cultural and sociological constraints to open data sharing, we as a community must recognise that top-down pressure from policy alone is unlikely to improve the state of ecological data availability and accessibility. Open data policy is almost ubiquitous (e.g. the Joint Data Archiving Policy, (JDAP) http://datadryad.org/pages/jdap) and while cyber-infrastructures are becoming increasingly extensive, most have coevolved with sub-disciplines utilising high velocity, born digital data (e.g. remote sensing, automated sensor networks and citizen science). Consequently, they do not always offer technological solutions that ease data collation, standardisation, management and analytics, nor provide a good fit culturally to research communities working among the long-tail of ecological science, i.e. science conducted by many individual researchers/teams over limited spatial and temporal scales. Given the majority of scientific funding is spent on this type of dispersed research, there is a surprisingly large disconnect between the vast majority of ecological science and the cyber-infrastructures to support open data mandates, offering a possible explanation to why primary ecological data are reportedly difficult to find…(More)”.

Scaling deep through transformative learning in public sector innovation labs – experiences from Vancouver and Auckland

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Lindsay Cole & Penny Hagen: “…explores scaling deep through transformative learning in Public Sector Innovation Labs (PSI labs) as a pathway to increase the impacts of their work. Using literature review and participatory action research with two PSI labs in Vancouver and Auckland, we provide descriptions of how they enact transformative learning and scaling deep. A shared ambition for transformative innovation towards social and ecological wellbeing sparked independent moves towards scaling deep and transformative learning which, when compared, offer fruitful insights to researchers and practitioners. The article includes a PSI lab typology and six moves to practice transformative learning and scaling deep…(More)”.

Protests

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Davide Cantoni, Andrew Kao, David Y. Yang & Noam Yuchtman: “Citizens have long taken to the streets to demand change, expressing political views that may otherwise be suppressed. Protests have produced change at local, national, and international scales, including spectacular moments of political and social transformation. We document five new empirical patterns describing 1.2 million protest events across 218 countries between 1980 and 2020. First, autocracies and weak democracies experienced a trend break in protests during the Arab Spring. Second, protest movements also rose in importance following the Arab Spring. Third, protest movements geographically diffuse over time, spiking to their peak, before falling off. Fourth, a country’s year-to-year economic performance is not strongly correlated with protests; individual values are predictive of protest participation. Fifth, the US, China, and Russia are the most over-represented countries by their share of academic studies. We discuss each pattern’s connections to the existing literature and anticipate paths for future work.Citizens have long taken to the streets to demand change, expressing political views that may otherwise be suppressed. Protests have produced change at local, national, and international scales, including spectacular moments of political and social transformation. We document five new empirical patterns describing 1.2 million protest events across 218 countries between 1980 and 2020. First, autocracies and weak democracies experienced a trend break in protests during the Arab Spring. Second, protest movements also rose in importance following the Arab Spring. Third, protest movements geographically diffuse over time, spiking to their peak, before falling off. Fourth, a country’s year-to-year economic performance is not strongly correlated with protests; individual values are predictive of protest participation. Fifth, the US, China, and Russia are the most over-represented countries by their share of academic studies. We discuss each pattern’s connections to the existing literature and anticipate paths for future work.Citizens have long taken to the streets to demand change, expressing political views that may otherwise be suppressed. Protests have produced change at local, national, and international scales, including spectacular moments of political and social transformation. We document five new empirical patterns describing 1.2 million protest events across 218 countries between 1980 and 2020. First, autocracies and weak democracies experienced a trend break in protests during the Arab Spring. Second, protest movements also rose in importance following the Arab Spring. Third, protest movements geographically diffuse over time, spiking to their peak, before falling off. Fourth, a country’s year-to-year economic performance is not strongly correlated with protests; individual values are predictive of protest participation. Fifth, the US, China, and Russia are the most over-represented countries by their share of academic studies. We discuss each pattern’s connections to the existing literature and anticipate paths for future work…(More)”.

City/Science Intersections: A Scoping Review of Science for Policy in Urban Contexts

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Gabriela Manrique Rueda et al: “Science is essential for cities to understand and intervene on the increasing global risks. However, challenges in effectively utilizing scientific knowledge in decision-making processes limit cities’ abilities to address these risks. This scoping review examines the development of science for urban policy, exploring the contextual factors, organizational structures, and mechanisms that facilitate or hinder the integration of science and policy. It investigates the challenges faced and the outcomes achieved. The findings reveal that science has gained influence in United Nations (UN) policy discourses, leading to the expansion of international, regional, and national networks connecting science and policy. Boundary-spanning organizations and collaborative research initiatives with stakeholders have emerged, creating platforms for dialogue, knowledge sharing, and experimentation. However, cultural differences between the science and policy realms impede the effective utilization of scientific knowledge in decision-making. While efforts are being made to develop methods and tools for knowledge co-production, translation, and mobilization, more attention is needed to establish science-for-policy organizational structures and address power imbalances in research processes that give rise to ethical challenges…(More)”.

How Will the State Think With the Assistance of ChatGPT? The Case of Customs as an Example of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Public Administrations

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Thomas Cantens: “…discusses the implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) in public administrations and the specific questions it raises compared to specialized and « numerical » AI, based on the example of Customs and the experience of the World Customs Organization in the field of AI and data strategy implementation in Member countries.

At the organizational level, the advantages of GAI include cost reduction through internalization of tasks, uniformity and correctness of administrative language, access to broad knowledge, and potential paradigm shifts in fraud detection. At this level, the paper highlights three facts that distinguish GAI from specialized AI : i) GAI is less associated to decision-making process than specialized AI in public administrations so far, ii) the risks usually associated with GAI are often similar to those previously associated with specialized AI, but, while certain risks remain pertinent, others lose significance due to the constraints imposed by the inherent limitations of GAI technology itself when implemented in public administrations, iii) training data corpus for GAI becomes a strategic asset for public administrations, maybe more than the algorithms themselves, which was not the case for specialized AI.

At the individual level, the paper emphasizes the “language-centric” nature of GAI in contrast to “number-centric” AI systems implemented within public administrations up until now. It discusses the risks of replacement or enslavement of civil servants to the machines by exploring the transformative impact of GAI on the intellectual production of the State. The paper pleads for the development of critical vigilance and critical thinking as specific skills for civil servants who are highly specialized and will have to think with the assistance of a machine that is eclectic by nature…(More)”.

Rethinking the Role of Nudge in Public Policy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sema Müge Özdemiray: “The view of achieving the desired results in public policies depends on steering individuals, with decisions and actions incompatible with rationality, in a predictable way has pushed policymakers to collaborate with psychology methods and theories. Accordingly, in the recent policy design of public authorities, there is an increasing interest in the nudge approach, which is considered a less costly, more liberal, more citizen-focused alternative to traditional policy instruments. Nudging, which has produced effective solutions for different social problems, has also brought with it many criticisms. These criticisms have led to questioning alternative and advanced new policy tools in the field of behavioral public policy. In this study, the “nudge-plus” approach is discussed as one of these policy tools, which was put forward by Peter John and Gerry Stoker and which argues that the criticisms directed to nudge can be overcome by incorporating a citizen-oriented perspective into the nudge approach. This study aims to draw attention to the prediction that the use of the nudge-plus method in public policy design can produce more effective results in line with today’s participatory and collaborative administration approach…(More)”.

Informing the Global Data Future: Benchmarking Data Governance Frameworks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Sara Marcucci, Natalia González Alarcón, Stefaan G. Verhulst and Elena Wüllhorst: “Data has become a critical trans-national and cross-border resource. Yet, the lack of a well-defined approach to using it poses challenges to harnessing its value. This article explores the increasing importance of global data governance due to the rapid growth of data, and the need for responsible data practices. The purpose of this paper is to compare approaches and identify patterns in the emergent data governance ecosystem within sectors close to the international development field, ultimately presenting key takeaways and reflections on when and why a global data governance framework may be needed. Overall, the paper provides information about the conditions when a more holistic, coordinated transnational approach to data governance may be needed to responsibly manage the global flow of data. The report does this by (a) considering conditions specified by the literature that may be conducive to global data governance, and (b) analyzing and comparing existing frameworks, specifically investigating six key elements: purpose, principles, anchoring documents, data description and lifecycle, processes, and practices. The article closes with a series of final recommendations, which include adopting a broader concept of data stewardship to reconcile data protection and promotion, focusing on responsible reuse of data to unlock socioeconomic value, harmonizing meanings to operationalize principles, incorporating global human rights frameworks to provide common North Stars, unifying key definitions of data, adopting a data lifecycle approach, incorporating participatory processes and collective agency, investing in new professions with specific roles, improving accountability through oversight and compliance mechanisms, and translating recommendations into practical tools…(More)”

The Crowdless Future? How Generative AI Is Shaping the Future of Human Crowdsourcing

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Leonard Boussioux, Jacqueline Lane, Miaomiao Zhang, Vladimir Jacimovic, and Karim Lakhani: “This study investigates the capability of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in creating innovative business solutions compared to human crowdsourcing methods. We initiated a crowdsourcing challenge focused on sustainable, circular economy business opportunities. The challenge attracted a diverse range of solvers from a myriad of countries and industries. Simultaneously, we employed GPT-4 to generate AI solutions using three different prompt levels, each calibrated to simulate distinct human crowd and expert personas. 145 evaluators assessed a randomized selection of 10 out of 234 human and AI solutions, a total of 1,885 evaluator-solution pairs. Results showed comparable quality between human and AI-generated solutions. However, human ideas were perceived as more novel, whereas AI solutions delivered better environmental and financial value. We use natural language processing techniques on the rich solution text to show that although human solvers and GPT-4 cover a similar range of industries of application, human solutions exhibit greater semantic diversity. The connection between semantic diversity and novelty is stronger in human solutions, suggesting differences in how novelty is created by humans and AI or detected by human evaluators. This study illuminates the potential and limitations of both human and AI crowdsourcing to solve complex organizational problems and sets the groundwork for a possible integrative human-AI approach to problem-solving…(More)”.

Do People Like Algorithms? A Research Strategy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Cass R. Sunstein and Lucia Reisch: “Do people like algorithms? In this study, intended as a promissory note and a description of a research strategy, we offer the following highly preliminary findings. (1) In a simple choice between a human being and an algorithm, across diverse settings and without information about the human being or the algorithm, people in our tested groups are about equally divided in their preference. (2) When people are given a very brief account of the data on which an algorithm relies, there is a large shift in favor of the algorithm over the human being. (3) When people are given a very brief account of the experience of the relevant human being, without an account of the data on which the relevant algorithm relies, there is a moderate shift in favor of the human being. (4) When people are given both (a) a very brief account of the experience of the relevant human being and (b) a very brief account of the data on which the relevant algorithm relies, there is a large shift in favor of the algorithm over the human being. One lesson is that in the tested groups, at least one-third of people seem to have a clear preference for either a human being or an algorithm – a preference that is unaffected by brief information that seems to favor one or the other. Another lesson is that a brief account of the data on which an algorithm relies does have a significant effect on a large percentage of the tested groups, whether or not people are also given positive information about the human alternative. Across the various surveys, we do not find persistent demographic differences, with one exception: men appear to like algorithms more than women do. These initial findings are meant as proof of concept, or more accurately as a suggestion of concept, intended to inform a series of larger and more systematic studies of whether and when people prefer to rely on algorithms or human beings, and also of international and demographic differences…(More)”.

What is the value of data? A review of empirical methods

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Diane Coyle and Annabel Manley: “With the growing use of digital technologies, data have become core to many organizations’ decisions, with its value widely acknowledged across public and private sectors. Yet few comprehensive empirical approaches to establishing the value of data exist, and there is no consensus about which methods should be applied to specific data types or purposes. This paper examines a range of data valuation methodologies proposed in the existing literature. We propose a typology linking methods to different data types and purposes…(More)”.