12 research outputs found
The VISTA Science Archive
We describe the VISTA Science Archive (VSA) and its first public release of
data from five of the six VISTA Public Surveys. The VSA exists to support the
VISTA Surveys through their lifecycle: the VISTA Public Survey consortia can
use it during their quality control assessment of survey data products before
submission to the ESO Science Archive Facility (ESO SAF); it supports their
exploitation of survey data prior to its publication through the ESO SAF; and,
subsequently, it provides the wider community with survey science exploitation
tools that complement the data product repository functionality of the ESO SAF.
This paper has been written in conjunction with the first public release of
public survey data through the VSA and is designed to help its users understand
the data products available and how the functionality of the VSA supports their
varied science goals. We describe the design of the database and outline the
database-driven curation processes that take data from nightly
pipeline-processed and calibrated FITS files to create science-ready survey
datasets. Much of this design, and the codebase implementing it, derives from
our earlier WFCAM Science Archive (WSA), so this paper concentrates on the
VISTA-specific aspects and on improvements made to the system in the light of
experience gained in operating the WSA.Comment: 22 pages, 16 figures. Minor edits to fonts and typos after
sub-editting. Published in A&
Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world
Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues
Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world
Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues
Reimagining the language of engagement in a post-stakeholder world
Language matters in shaping perceptions and guiding behaviour. The term stakeholder is widely used, yet little attention is paid to the possibility that its use may inadvertently perpetuate colonial narratives and reinforce systemic inequities. In this article, we critically examine the limitations of the stakeholder concept and its ambiguity, normativity, and exclusionary implications. We emphasise the importance of using language that gives a voice to marginalised groups, promotes inclusion and equity, and fosters meaningful and reflexive participation in decision-making processes. In critiquing the use of the term and calling for alternative practices, we aim to contribute to the decolonisation of research norms and the creation of more inclusive and equitable societies. Therefore, rather than advocating a single alternative term, we suggest a focus on the people, places, and species affected by decisions, interventions, projects, and issues.</p