47 research outputs found
Extending the mutual information measure to rank inferred literature relationships
BACKGROUND: Within the peer-reviewed literature, associations between two things are not always recognized until commonalities between them become apparent. These commonalities can provide justification for the inference of a new relationship where none was previously known, and are the basis of most observation-based hypothesis formation. It has been shown that the crux of the problem is not finding inferable associations, which are extraordinarily abundant given the scale-free networks that arise from literature-based associations, but determining which ones are informative. The Mutual Information Measure (MIM) is a well-established method to measure how informative an association is, but is limited to direct (i.e. observable) associations. RESULTS: Herein, we attempt to extend the calculation of mutual information to indirect (i.e. inferable) associations by using the MIM of shared associations. Objects of general research interest (e.g. genes, diseases, phenotypes, drugs, ontology categories) found within MEDLINE are used to create a network of associations for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Mutual information calculations can be effectively extended into implied relationships and a significance cutoff estimated from analysis of random word networks. Of the models tested, the shared minimum MIM (MMIM) model is found to correlate best with the observed strength and frequency of known associations. Using three test cases, the MMIM method tends to rank more specific relationships higher than counting the number of shared relationships within a network
Are anonymity-seekers just like everybody else? An analysis of contributions to Wikipedia from Tor
User-generated content sites routinely block contributions from users of
privacy-enhancing proxies like Tor because of a perception that proxies are a
source of vandalism, spam, and abuse. Although these blocks might be effective,
collateral damage in the form of unrealized valuable contributions from
anonymity seekers is invisible. One of the largest and most important
user-generated content sites, Wikipedia, has attempted to block contributions
from Tor users since as early as 2005. We demonstrate that these blocks have
been imperfect and that thousands of attempts to edit on Wikipedia through Tor
have been successful. We draw upon several data sources and analytical
techniques to measure and describe the history of Tor editing on Wikipedia over
time and to compare contributions from Tor users to those from other groups of
Wikipedia users. Our analysis suggests that although Tor users who slip through
Wikipedia's ban contribute content that is more likely to be reverted and to
revert others, their contributions are otherwise similar in quality to those
from other unregistered participants and to the initial contributions of
registered users.Comment: To appear in the IEEE Symposium on Security & Privacy, May 202