A GeoSocial Intelligence Framework for Studying & Promoting Resilience to Seasonal Flooding in Jakarta, Indonesia

PetaJakarta.org is a web-based platform developed to harness the power of social media to gather, sort, and display information about flooding for Jakarta residents in real time. The platform runs on the open source software CogniCity—an OSS platform developed by the SMART Infrastructure Facility, University of Wollongong—which allows data to be collected and disseminated by community members through their location-enabled mobile devices. The project uses a GeoSocial Intelligence Framework to approach the complexity of Jakarta’s entangled hydraulic, hydrological and meteorological systems and thereby converts the noise of social media into knowledge about urban infrastructure and situational conditions related to flooding and inundation. In this paper, PetaJakarta.org co-directors Dr Tomas Holderness, Geomatics Research Fellow at the SMART Infrastructure Facility, Dr Etienne Turpin, Vice-Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the SMART Infrastructure Facility, and Dr Rohan Wickramasuriyam, GIS Research Fellow at the SMART Infrastructure Facility, will discuss their GeoSocial Intelligence Framework as it applies to their current research in Jakarta. They will also present their preliminary findings from their 2014 Twitter #DataGrant, which has allowed them to develop a correlative analysis between historic social media information, the Jakarta government’s flood maps, and the infrastructure used to manage critical flood emergencies. Finally, they will speculate on several future applications of the CogniCity OSS and suggest how it might be developed to further promote an integrated civic co-management platform with the support of business, industry, government and community organizations

Pray For The Lights To Go Out : A Negro Shouting Song

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/2395/thumbnail.jp

Are R&D collaborators bound to compete? Experience from Cooperative Research Centres in Australia

Increasingly, research of potential socio-economic value is being conducted within cross-sector (government, university, business) inter-organizational networks. Such networks encourage innovation and learning by breaking down rigidities in existing institutions and by providing for ‘knowledge creation in the context of application’. In the process, new organizational forms for research and development (R&D) are emerging. The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) is the dominant organizational model for cross-sector collaborative R&D in Australia. Joining a cross-sector collaborative R&D centre poses a significant challenge for public sector research managers. Success depends on cooperation with businesses and other organizations whose interests, objectives, expectations and strategies at various times converge or conflict. The game is a risky one, with the possibility of unforeseen and unwelcome consequences such as partner opportunism and competition for resources. Yet little empirical evidence exists on how researchers perceive and manage the risks and rewards of participation in cross-sector R&D centres. Our study gives voice to the researchers within these inter-organizational networks. We draw evidence from a written survey of 370 respondents from public sector organizations involved in the management and conduct of CRC-based research. The survey questions permit an assessment of the main benefits and problems in CRC participation; the management strategies adopted; and the effect of CRC participation on careers. Responses to open-ended questions in the survey convey the ‘CRC experience’ in the participants own words. We find the concepts of risk common in the management and organizational studies literature inadequate to explain the dynamics of interaction in cross-sector R&D. We therefore extend these through notions of the domains of ‘academic’, ‘scientific’ and ‘organizational’ risk. There are two broad implications of our findings: (1) participants in the CRC need to look beyond the traditionally acknowledged risks of contractual arrangements and consider risks that relate to the nature of scientific knowledge structures and the actual concerns and careers of research scientists; and (2) once these ‘academic’ and ‘scientific’ considerations are properly assessed, government research agencies and universities may need to adopt different management responses to their participation in inter-organizational R&D. We speculate that the way these potentially competing domains are dealt with has implications for (1) the survival of individual CRCs and (2) whether cross-sector collaborative R&D organizations remain ephemeral ‘staging posts’ or become entrenched in the national research system. We argue that cross-sector collaborative R&D organizations are an important component of a dynamic ‘science system’, but that they are inherently unstable organizations. They require organizational management that recognises their differences from business IORs that involve firms alone

On crowdsourcing relevance magnitudes for information retrieval evaluation

4siMagnitude estimation is a psychophysical scaling technique for the measurement of sensation, where observers assign numbers to stimuli in response to their perceived intensity. We investigate the use of magnitude estimation for judging the relevance of documents for information retrieval evaluation, carrying out a large-scale user study across 18 TREC topics and collecting over 50,000 magnitude estimation judgments using crowdsourcing. Our analysis shows that magnitude estimation judgments can be reliably collected using crowdsourcing, are competitive in terms of assessor cost, and are, on average, rank-aligned with ordinal judgments made by expert relevance assessors. We explore the application of magnitude estimation for IR evaluation, calibrating two gain-based effectiveness metrics, nDCG and ERR, directly from user-reported perceptions of relevance. A comparison of TREC system effectiveness rankings based on binary, ordinal, and magnitude estimation relevance shows substantial variation; in particular, the top systems ranked using magnitude estimation and ordinal judgments differ substantially. Analysis of the magnitude estimation scores shows that this effect is due in part to varying perceptions of relevance: different users have different perceptions of the impact of relative differences in document relevance. These results have direct implications for IR evaluation, suggesting that current assumptions about a single view of relevance being sufficient to represent a population of users are unlikely to hold.partially_openopenMaddalena, Eddy; Mizzaro, Stefano; Scholer, Falk; Turpin, AndrewMaddalena, Eddy; Mizzaro, Stefano; Scholer, Falk; Turpin, Andre

Oligomers, organosulfates, and nitrooxy organosulfates in rainwater identified by ultra-high resolution electrospray ionization FT-ICR mass spectrometry

Wet deposition is an important removal mechanism for atmospheric organic matter, and a potentially important input for receiving ecosystems, yet less than 50% of rainwater organic matter is considered chemically characterized. Precipitation samples collected in New Jersey, USA, were analyzed by negative ion ultra-high resolution electrospray ionization Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FT-ICR MS). Elemental compositions of 552 unique molecular species were determined in the mass range 50–500 Da in the rainwater. Four main groups of organic compounds were identified: compounds containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (CHO) only, sulfur (S) containing CHOS compounds, nitrogen (N) containing CHON compounds, and S- and N- containing CHONS compounds. Organic acids commonly identified in precipitation were detected in the rainwater. Within the four main groups of compounds detected in the rainwater, oligomers, organosulfates, and nitrooxy-organosulfates were assigned based on elemental formula comparisons. The majority of the compounds identified are products of atmospheric reactions and are known contributors to secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formed from gas phase, aerosol phase, and in-cloud reactions in the atmosphere. It is suggested that the large uncharacterized component of SOA is the main contributor to the large uncharacterized component of rainwater organic matter

Flamingo Vol. IV N 1

Anonymous. Cover. 0. W. Va. Workman. Untitled. Prose. 1. E.S. Untitled. Picture. 5. C.K. They say that the army is getting to be all bunk. Picture. 6. Chef, A. Eight Ball. Prose. 7. Bannister. Untitled. Picture. 8. W.A.V. JANE AND ME. Poem. 9. H.M.K. Environments. Poem. 9. Anonymous. Untitled. Picture. 9. C.H.L. Life. Poem. 9. Anonymous. Untitled. Picture. 9. C.K. MY BIG SISTER, SHE. Poem. 9. C.K. INHERITANCE. Poem. 9. Anonymous. D\u27JA KNOW THIS? Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Davis, Dick. Officer of the Guard— If anything moves, you shoot. Sentry — Yes suh, Capting, suh, an\u27 if anything shoots, Ah moves! Picture. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. E.T. Rhymes of the Campaign. Poem. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 10. Anonymous. Military Note: The right weakens. Picture. 10. Keeler, Clyde D. Thots of Camp (sic). Picture. 11. Anonymous. You See Above. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. C.K. Army Life. Poem. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 11. Anonymous. Charles B. Clark. Picture. 12. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. Army Record of Colonel Charles B. Clark. Prose. 13. E.T. THE DOUGHBOY AND THE DEMOISELLE. Poem. 13. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 13. Anonymous. When. Prose. 14. Anonymous. THE COLONEL. Prose. 15. Anonymous. Yes. Prose. 15. Anonymous. SQUAD, HALT! Prose. 15. Anonymous. Untitled. Picture. 15. Anonymous. Oh Charles, do show me that new step you spoke of, \u27Route Step\u27 I think you called it! Picture. 16. Side-Burns, Robert. Handsome Dick, The Hardy Hash Slinger. Prose. 16. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 16. Anonymous. HOW\u27S BUSINESS? Prose. 17. C.K. HUMANUS CORPORIS. Poem 17. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 17. Anonymous. Portraits of Local Celebrities Number Two. Picture. 17. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 17. G.W. HISTORIC PARALLELS. Poem. 17. Anonymous. BENNY SAYS. Poem. 17. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 17. L.H. OCCUPATION. Poem. 18. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 18. Anonymous. Untitled. Poem. 18. Anonymous. NEWS NOTE. Prose. 18. Anonymous. AN ECHO OF EXAMS. Poem. 18. Anonymous. Recruiting Officer — Join the army and get the spice of life. Picture. 18. Anonymous. THE IDEAL ROOMMATE. Prose. 18. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 18. Anonymous. BENNY SAYS. Prose. 18. G.W. THE OLD ORDER CHANGETH. Poem. 18. Anonymous. GETTING HELP. Prose. 18. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 18. Anonymous. Again. Prose. 18. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 19. Anonymous. SO THIS IS COLLEGE! Poem. 19. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 19. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 19. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 19. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 19. Anonymous. AFTER IT\u27S GONE. Poem. 19. Anonymous. MY BROKEN HEART. Picture. 19. Anonymous. OUR MONTHLY RADIO BEDTIME STORY FOR BOYS AND GIRLS. Prose. 19. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 19. Anonymous. SPEAKING OF LITERARY INDIGESTION. Prose. 19. Leau, R. Ates. Untitled. Poem. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Poem. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Picture. 20. I. Do. Untitled. Poem. 20. H.K. A Regular Y. W. Candle Service. Picture/Poem. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Poem. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Poem. 20. Whocun Tell. Untitled. Poem. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 20. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 20. Anonymous. Ohio Conference Basketball Champions-Denison. Picture. 21. Grayce. Untitled. Picture. 22. Anonymous. Untitled. Prose. 22. Princeton Tiger. HE HAD CUT OUT THE WILD LIFE. Prose. 22. Green Gander. A GOOD SUBSTITUTE. Prose. 22. Log of U. S. Naval Academy. AYE, AYE! WHAT\u27S HER NAME? Prose. 22. Wag Jag. IT\u27S DIFFERENT IN SHORTHAND. Prose. 22. Siren. REMINISCING. Prose. 22. New York Daily News. Untitled. Prose. 22. Beanpot. PAGE CAESAR. Prose. 22. Fire. Untitled. Prose. 25. Green Gander. Untitled. Prose. 26. Bison. AND CALL AGAIN! Prose. 26. Columbia State. Untitled. Prose. 26. Sour Owl. Untitled. Prose. 26. Jester. Untitled. Prose. 26. Punch Bowl. THE WRONG ROAD. Prose. 26. Awgwan. Untitled. Prose. 26. Sun Dial. Untitled. Prose. 28. Boll Weevil. Untitled. Prose. 28. Sun Dodger. Untitled. Prose. 29. Virginia Reel. Untitled. Prose. 29. Green Gander. CORRECT. Poem. 29. Froth. Untitled. Prose. 31. Parrakeet. AN EXCEPTION. Prose. 31. Yale Record. Untitled. Prose. 31. Lehigh Burr. Untitled. Prose. 31. Phoenix. Untitled. Prose. 31. Phoenix. Untitled. Prose. 31. Lord Jeff. Untitled. Prose. 31. Anonymous. SAY IT ALOUD. Prose. 32. Imp. Untitled. Prose. 32. Sun Dodger. Untitled. Prose. 32. Banter. Untitled. Prose. 32. Lemon Punch. Untitled. Prose. 32. Punch Bowl. Untitled. Prose. 32. Phoenix. Untitled. Prose. 32

Conical refraction with low-coherence light sources

We report on conical refraction (CR) with low-coherence light sources, such as light-emitting diodes and decoherentized HeNe laser radiation, and demonstrate different CR patterns. In our experiments, a variation of the pinhole sizes from 25 to 100 µm and the distances to pinhole from 50 to 5 cm reduced spatial coherence of radiation that resulted in the disappearance of the dark Poggendorff’s ring in the Lloyd’s plane. This is attributed to the interference nature of the Lloyd’s distribution and found to be in excellent agreement with the paraxial dual-cone model of conical refraction

\u27Scared Straight\u27 and Other Juvenile Awareness Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency

Background: \u27Scared Straight\u27 and other similar programs involve organized visits to prison by juvenile delinquents or children at risk for criminal behavior. Programs are designed to deter participants from future offending through firsthand observation of prison life and interaction with adult inmates. These programs remain in use despite research questioning their effectiveness. This is an update of a 2002 review. Objectives: To assess the effects of programs comprising organized visits to prisons by juvenile delinquents (officially adjudicated, that is, convicted by a juvenile court) or pre-delinquents (children in trouble but not officially adjudicated as delinquents), aimed at deterring them from delinquency. Search methods: To update this review, we searched 22 electronic databases, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Criminal Justice Abstracts, in December 2011. In addition, we searched clinical trials registries, consulted experts, conducted Google Scholar searches, and followed up on all relevant citations. Selection criteria: We included studies that tested programs involving the organized visits of delinquents or children at risk for delinquency to penal institutions such as prisons or reformatives. Studies that had overlapping samples of juvenile and young adults (for example, ages 14 to 20 years) were included. We only considered studies that assigned participants to conditions randomly or quasi-randomly (that is, by odd/even assignment to conditions). Each study had to have a no-treatment control condition and at least one outcome measure of \u27post-visit\u27 criminal behavior. Data collection and analysis: The search methods for the original review generated 487 citations, most of which had abstracts. The lead review author screened these citations, determining that 30 were evaluation reports. Two review authors independently examined these citations and agreed that 11 were potential randomized trials. All reports were obtained. Upon inspection of the full-text reports, two review authors independently agreed to exclude two studies, resulting in nine randomized trials. The lead review author extracted data from each of the nine study reports using a specially designed instrument. In cases in which outcome information was missing from the original reports, we made attempts via correspondence to retrieve the data for the analysis from the original investigators. Outcome data were independently checked by a second review author (CTP). In this review, we report the results of each of the nine trials narratively. We conducted two meta-analyses of seven studies that provided postintervention offending rates using official data. Information from other sources (for example, self-report) was either missing from some studies or critical information was omitted (for example, standard deviations). We examined the immediate post-treatment effects (that is, \u27first-effects\u27) by computing odds ratios (OR) for data on proportions of each group reoffending, and assumed both fixed-effect and random-effects models in our analyses. Main results: We have included nine studies in this review. All were part of the original systematic review; no new trials meeting eligibility criteria were identified through our updated searches. The studies were conducted in eight different states of the USA, during the years 1967 to 1992. Nearly 1000 (946) juveniles or young adults of different races participated, almost all males. The average age of the participants in each study ranged from 15 to 17 years. Meta-analyses of seven studies show the intervention to be more harmful than doing nothing. The OR (fixed-effect) for effects on first post-treatment effect on officially measured criminal behavior indicated a negative program effect (OR 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.36) and nearly identical regardless of themeta-analytic strategy (random-effects OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.62). Sensitivity analyses (random-effects) showed the findings were robust even when removing one study with an inadequate randomization strategy (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.11), or when removing one study with high attrition (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.08), or both (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.58). Authors\u27 conclusions: We conclude that programs such as \u27Scared Straight\u27 increase delinquency relative to doing nothing at all to similar youths. Given these results, we cannot recommend this program as a crime prevention strategy. Agencies that permit such programs, therefore, must rigorously evaluate them, to ensure that they do not cause more harm than good to the very citizens they pledge to protect