It does make a tremendous difference to your sales.

« previous post |

In Science today, there's yesterday, there was an article called "Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books" [subscription required] by at least twelve authors (eleven individuals, plus "the Google Books team"), which reports on some exercises in quantitative research performed on what is by far the largest corpus ever assembled for humanities and social science research. Culled from the Google Books collection, it contains more than 5 million books published between 1800 and 2000 — at a rough estimate, 4 percent of all the books ever published — of which two-thirds are in English and the others distributed among French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, and Hebrew. (The English corpus alone contains some 360 billion words, dwarfing better structured data collections like the corpora of historical and contemporary American English at BYU, which top out at a paltry 400 million words each.)

I have an article on the project appearing in tomorrow's in today's Chronicle of Higher Education, which I'll link to here, and in later posts Ben or Mark will probably be addressing some of the particular studies, like the estimates of English vocabulary size, as well as the wider implications of the enterprise. For now, some highlights:

1. The team: The authors include some Google Books researchers (Jon Orwant, Peter Norvig, Matthew Gray and Dan Clancy), a group of people associated with Harvard bioscience programs (Jean-Baptiste Michel, Erez Lieberman Aiden, Aviva Aiden, Adrien Veres, and Martin Nowak), as well as Steve Pinker of Harvard and Joe Pickett of the American Heritage Dictionary, Dale Hoiberg of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and Yuan Kui Shen of the MIT AI lab. So it's dominated by scientists and engineers, and is framed in scientific (or -istic) terms: the enterprise is described, unwisely, I think, with the name "culturomics" (that's a long o, as in genome). That's apt to put some humanists off, but doesn't affect the implications of the paper one way or the other. I have more to say about this in the Chronicle article.

2. The research exercises take various forms. In one, the researchers computed the rates at which irregular English verbs became regular over the past two centuries. In another, very ingenious, they used quantitative methods to detect the suppression of the names of artists and intellectuals in books published in Nazi Germany, the Stalinist Soviet Union, and contemporary China. A third deals with investigate the evolution of fame, as measured by the relative frequency of mentions of people’s names. They began with the 740,000 people with entries in Wikipedia and sorted them by birth date, picking the 50 most frequently mentioned names from each birth year (so that the 1882 cohort contained Felix Frankfurter and Virginia Woolf, and so on). Next they plotted the median frequency of mention for each cohort over time and looked for historical tendencies. It turns out that people become famous more quickly and reach a greater maximum fame today than they did 100 years ago, but that their fame dies out more rapidly — though it's left unclear what to make of those generalizations or what limits there are to equating fame with frequency of mention.

The paper also presents a number of n-gram trajectories — that it, graphs that show the relative frequency of words or n-grams (up to five) over the period 1800-2000. ("Relative frequency" here means the ratio of tokens of the expression in a given year to the total number of tokens in that year.) By way of example, they plot the changing fame of Galileo, Dickens, Freud, and Einstein; the frequency of "steak," "hamburger," "pizza" and "pasta"; and the changing frequency of "influenza" (it peaks, in the least surprising result of the study, in years of epidemics).

The big news is that Google has set up a site called the Google Books Ngram Viewer where the public can enter words or n-grams (to 5) for any period and corpus and see the resulting graph. They've also announced that the entire dataset of n-grams will be made available for download. Some reports have interpreted this as meaning that Google is making the entire corpus available. It isn't, alas, nor even the pre-1923 portion of the corpus that's in public domain. One can hope…

At present, that's all you can with this. You can't do many of the things that you can do with other corpora: you can’t ask for a list of the words that follow traditional for each decade from 1900 to 2000 in order of descending frequency, or restrict a search for bronzino to paragraphs that contain fish and don’t contain painting, etc. And while Lieberman Aiden and Michel made an impressive effort to purge the subcorpus of the metadata errors that have plagued Google Books, you can't sort books by genre or topic. The researchers do plan to make available a more robust search interface for the corpus, though it's unlikely that users will be able to replicate a lot of the computationally heavy-duty exercises that the researchers report in the paper. But my sense is that even this limited functionality will be interesting and useful to a lot of humanists and historians, even if linguists won't be really happy until they have the whole data set to play with. Again, I'll have more on this in the Chronicle essay.

That's all for now… watch this space.

December 16, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
· Filed by Geoff Nunberg under Computational Linguistics, Language and literature

Permalink

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Name is required to post a comment

Please enter a valid email address

Invalid URL

Reference research: research Dr. and home research and sport research and recent update




sport promote

Blogging builds your market.

Researchers are currently testing an artificial blood on unconscious patients and this is creating an ethics debate. The artificial blood is called PolyHeme and is made by Northfield Laboratories. Ethicists have weighed in on both sides of the ethics question.

The artificial blood has been tested in earlier hospital studies and most have shown it to be safe. However, there was one study on PolyHeme that was halted after 10 of 81 patients given it had heart attacks and two died. None of those receiving standard treatment had a heart attack. Those who are concerned about the ethics of the current study have pointed out that no one is being informed of this study.

The research on artificial blood works this way. The community where the testing is to be done is informed by researchers about the study. Those who do not wish to be part of the study in case they have a serious accident can opt to wear a special bracelet. If paramedics see no bracelet, they open a sealed envelope that tells them to give either a standard saline solution or the artificial blood. The artificial blood continues to be given for 12 hours once the patient reaches the hospital. There are several ethics problems posed by the research. In the first place, the community is really not being well informed about the existence of the test on artificial blood.

In 1996 Congress passed a law that allows a bypass of the rules on informed consent when dealing with an emergency, potentially life saving research. Supporters point out that PolyHeme, the artificial blood, could save as many as 100,000 lives a year in the U.S. Dr. Richard Garnellie says we don’t ask permission to commence CPR and that the ethics of testing artificial blood falls in the same area. “We kind of have a social contract to do the right thing already.”

Kelly Fryer-Edwards who studies ethics at the University of Washington Medical Center says that it would be difficult to find people to volunteer for a study of trauma patients because people don’t like to think about being in an accident. However, she feels that the attempt has been made to get informed consent. “You’re putting the responsibility on the person who wants to opt out…you have respected their autonomy by giving them that choice.” She feels that emergency research makes all approaches to research ethics go out the window—protecting subjects, getting informed consent.

Vera Sharaw, president of the Alliance for Human Research Protection is opposed to the research on artificial blood on ethical grounds. She says the study “is another one along that slippery slope that’s essentially demolishing your individual right not to become experimental subjects unless we give prior, voluntary, informed, comprehending consent.” She feels that the people who want to be in the study should be the ones wearing the bracelets.

Nancy King of the University of North Carolina has a third ethics concern. She agrees with those who support the experiment to use artificial blood in the field where blood can’t be typed. However she is opposed to its continued use for twelve hours after the patient has reached the hospital where it takes 20 to 30 minutes to type blood. She points out that giving human blood is the current standard of treatment once the patient reaches the hospital.

Several ethicists have pointed out that those most likely to be subjects of the research are from disadvantaged communities.

The University of California at San Diego School of Medicine has come up with the following questions for those interested in the ethics of research into artificial blood in emergency situations:

1. What ethical issues does this case raise for the process of informed consent?

2. Was the waiver of consent that exists for research involving emergency treatment appropriate in this case and if so, why?

3. From the community standpoint, who speaks for the interest of (potential) participants? Should more have been done to ensure their safety and well being and, if so, what?

4. In what circumstances, if any, is it ethically acceptable to draw a disproportionate share of its subjects from a disadvantaged community?

These are all good, difficult questions that should be answered by anyone interested in the ethics of giving artificial blood in emergency situations.







Reference research: business research and computer research and travel research and my bookmark page




3 Column Facebook Screensavers

cancer research

Today's educators are bombarded with information from all sides about the latest and greatest research-based instructional techniques in teaching. With all these crazes about instructional methods and the confusion about which one really works and which one is a dud, no wonder our teachers are so exhausted! As charming and inspirational as all these latest claims and success stories seem to be, educators need to be careful when choosing and implementing a new or old "miracle" instruction method. There are things a teacher needs to do before making any big changes to their curriculum and instruction.

First things first, what supporting evidence is there? Educators need to use their resources wisely and take all initial information with skepticism. Before actually outright backing the "amazing" new research supporting a particular method, whether it be Indirect Instruction, Cooperative learning, etc..., educators must do their research. Talk to colleagues, look the strategy up online, check out education magazines and journals, and any other resource material available. Find out what evidence there is out there to support the research-based strategy. Furthermore, make sure the sources you are calling upon for information are reliable. Reliable sources offer reliable evidence, so seek out unbiased, professional resources. Weigh pros and cons, consistencies and inconsistencies, before making a decision on the strategy at hand.

After thorough research has been done, the next important question is: "How should the research-based program be implemented?" And "What methods does the research show to be most advantageous?" These questions' answers would most probably appear in your research since it was suppose to be incredibly thorough. If not, you'll want to look it up. Many teachers forget this step, and as Grassen states in the article "What Does It Mean To Be a Research-Based Profession" teachers simply aren't properly implementing research-based strategies are thus losing out on potential benefits of the programs. "Cooperative learning was designed to complement teacher-directed instruction by providing further opportunity for students to work together using what they have learned. In most schools today, cooperative learning is used to replace teacher-directed instruction and students are expected to construct their own knowledge working in groups." (N.d). Clearly, teachers need to put a great deal of thought into this step as improper implementation of the program can have catastrophic consequences on learners.

Read up on each research-based method, decide what sorts of lessons would benefit from their use, and which wouldn't. Talk to colleagues about what methods they use in the classroom, why, and how they implement them. Most of all, be aware of comparisons being drawn between different research-based strategies. Look for comparative studies as opposed to non-comparative studies. Comparative studies are more likely to give you accuracy in research. Educators need to look at the whole picture. How is class A using strategy A performing compared to class B using strategy B? How do these same classes perform after trading strategies? How is school A using strategy A performing compared to school B using strategy B? And so on...

Lastly, before implementing any research-based strategy, an educator should ask themselves "Am I biased?" Be sure to be honest with yourself. Try to go into deliberation with an open and unbiased mind. Take into account all reliable sources whether they are in-line with your initial beliefs or opinions on the strategy or not. Remain unbiased until the end. Your openness and willingness to learn can determine the accuracy of your research.

There are a great many research-based programs out there and being implemented everyday. Many of them just don't have the proper supporting research for an educator, especially a new and inexperienced one, to simply throw their weight behind. Don't ask your students to do homework without doing your own. Research your methods before putting them into practice. Find out what's behind them, what's supporting them, and how they should be used to the biggest advantage in the classroom. Without such information your newest instructional plan could be a huge failure. Don't follow fads and trends, look for rock solid evidence and implementation methods before making that big leap of bringing it into your classroom.

Reference:

Grossen, B. (n.d). What Does It Mean To Be a Research-Based Profession? Retrieved March 8, 2007, from University of Oregon, Eugene Website: http://darkwing.uoregon.edu

Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. (2005). Research-Based Strategies. Retrieved March 5, 2007 from, Focus on Effectiveness Web site: http://www.netc.org/focus/strategies/




Reference research: business research and law research and general research and my social page




Blogger Analytics

research chemicals

July 24, 2006: In May 2006, the American Diabetes Association publicly urged the United States Senate to lift restrictions on stem cell research, and to pass the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. It had been stalled in the Senate for over a year, despite strong bi-partisan support.

The bill is no longer stalled. This past Tuesday, the bill was passed by a 67-37 vote, again, with strong support from both parties. The next day, President George W. Bush vetoed the bill.

In the first ever veto issued by the President, after 5½ years in office, embryonic stem cell researchers and patients living with myriad diseases and debilitating conditions were disappointed in their quest for better federal funding for research.

Hours after the veto was issued, the House of Representatives convened to hold a vote to override. They fell 51 votes short of the 286 required to override the veto.

Surrounding himself with adopted babies born from frozen embryos, Bush announced his veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act from the East Room of the White House. “These boys and girls are not spare parts,” he said. “They remind us of that is lost when embryos are destroyed in the name of research.”

“This bill would support the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others,” said President Bush.

Advocates for the bill ranging from patients and researchers to politicians on both sides of the political fence cried “foul,” Republican California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former first lady Nancy Reagan among them, both of whom urged the president to reconsider his position.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the day after the veto, Governor Schwarzenegger authorized $150 million in loans to California’s stem cell agency, a move that quadrupled the amount of money the agency had previously had access to for their embryonic stem cell research.

Nationally, however, the sting has been deeply felt by those invested in embryonic stem cell research and the potential outcomes of better funding for it. “We're just profoundly disappointed with the president's decision,” said pathologist Leo Furcht of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. “The fact that legitimate prospects are there for treating terrible diseases with these cells makes it very troubling.” (USA Today: July 20, 2006)

In a 2005 survey of 2,200 people conducted by the Genetics and Public Policy Center, 67% of people polled responded that they “approved” or “strongly approved” of embryonic stem cell research, according to USA Today. 

President Bush remained unmoved by public and political support for the issue. “It crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect,” said the President. “So, I vetoed it.”




Reference research: research Dr. and health research and shopping research and my bookmark page




Blogger Pro

Assertion Reason type questions.

http://www.linkbrander.com/go/58313

Blogging to create profits is a hot topic now and wordpress adsense rich blogs are the hottest yet. A new product from clickbank this week is the wordpress Adsense System that claims it has the magic formula for putting your niche website on auto pilot.

The system offers an eBook to explain how you can create Wordpress Adsense Websites with wordpress blogs that will bring you targeted traffic to your wordpress adsense blog and make our first adsense dollar for you in 7 days -guaranteed.

The advert does tell one truth which is that all the gurus don't emphasize that they already have a lot of traffic and you will have a difficult time duplicating their work. The secret is plugins, plugins and more plugins.

I have purchased lots of deals from the gurus and then I discover that what they tell you to do depends on traffic which you don't have. If no one comes to your wordpress adsense blog, you won't be selling anything.

The Wordpress Adsense System does have some merit. The author seems like he has done his homework and has all the good questions answered. He takes you through the steps to make you successful.

I already know that you want some good content and I know you can get it from anywhere as long as you credit the author. They want you to publish their content and are more than happy to let you do it.

I think the Wordpress Adsense System provides good information and will help you make money. There is work involved on your part but if you learn the steps and then duplicate everything over and over this will make you money.

I recommend you take a good look at this one because the Wordpress Adsense System can work and is something people can do without being an expert.

http://www.linkbrander.com/go/58313




Source article: Online Journals and Weblog and Free Blog Sites and online blogging and Rss Journal
Account Receivable Collection

research science fair projects

I am a veteran. I was in the U.S. Army for three years, and, during that time, served in the Vietnam War. Also, I have a couple of long-standing illnesses. Nothing is currently threatening my life but I do have medical considerations. Both of these situations have put me in the position to participate in research projects. Should a person participate in a research project?

Are there results that make participating in a study worthwhile; yes! The VA alone has developed artificial limbs for amputees; invented the cardiac pacemaker; performed the first successful liver transplant and developed the nicotine patch to name just a few accomplishments. ((DVA ORCA 1B 10-54 page 3)

A research study is a study about a certain medical condition, or procedure, or effect of medication. It may be one of many different approaches to solving a problem that affects human beings.

People participate in studies to find cures for illnesses; to find better care; and, to battle an illness in which a person may have a particular interest, or indeed, may suffer from.

When considering whether or not to participate in any particular study, it is necessary to know that there may or may be direct benefits to you. There may be a benefit regarding a medical condition you may have, or, in some cases, you may be paid to volunteer. However, hand in hand with that, there may be risks and side effects when participating is a study.

There are many, many questions that a person should ask before participating in a study. Just a few are; "Who is doing the study and why?" "What tests and procedures will be done?" "What can happen to me good and bad if I participate?" "Will I be paid anything?" "Will I be told the results of this study?" "Is it possible I will receive a placebo?" "What happens if my condition gets worse?" (DVA ORCA 1B 10-54 page 11) These are just some of the questions that it makes sense to ask.

You should always make sure that there is comprehensive attention given to "Informed Consent", which is a point where you, as the participant, are given complete information about the study so that you can make an intelligent decision as to whether or not you should participate.

Finally, it is important to know who may see the results. Typically, the results will only be seen by researchers as part of the study. However, I have learned, especially in studies where you are paid, that the results may be sold; it is important that you know too whom the information might be given or sold.

Research studies are most important to mankind. We learn about diseases and quality of life. Further, you never know when a project you participate in may help you or someone in your family. However, as noble as this cause is, it is always important to be diligent in your research about the research.





Reference research: research Dr. and computer research and travel research and my bookmark page




Delicious C++

research methods and statistics

According to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) will grant $23 million a year, for seven years, to six new Centers of Excellence for Influenza Research and Surveillance.

The ultimate goal of the Centers of Excellence is to help the federal government prepare for and respond to influenza outbreaks, especially those that may lead to pandemics or worldwide epidemics as has been feared since the initial outbreak of H5N1 (avian influenza A) in China in 1997. The centers will work with NIAID's influenza surveillance program, both in the U.S. and worldwide, to learn more about influenza viruses - specifically how they cause disease and how the human immune system responds to them.

The media report says that St. Jude will also be involved in basic research, as well as surveillance of viruses. Dr. Robert Webster is a member of the Infectious Diseases department at St. Jude. With respect to this new contract, he said, "There are a variety of viruses to monitor besides the well-known H5N1. For example, H7N7 infected chicken industry workers in the Netherlands; and H9N2, which circulates in many global avian populations, also sporadically appears in humans."

This is not the first contract that St. Jude has had with NIAID. In 1999, two years after the avian flu outbreak in Hong Kong, St. Jude was awarded an NIAID contract to watch and study aquatic birds, especially ducks, and birds in live markets in Hong Kong. During this time, St. Jude was also involved in training others in the techniques of animal influenza surveillance and developing tests to detect and identify viruses. As a result of this work, St. Jude was also able to provide the NIAID with seed vaccines.

The media report says that influenza viruses will be monitored in several states and in more than a dozen countries over the next seven years. St. Jude will also monitor children in Hong Kong hospitals who are there for influenza and conduct surveillance in Southeast Asia in cases where children have been hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Dr. Richard Webby is an assistant member in the Division of Virology in the Infectious Diseases department at St. Jude. In the media report, he said that St. Jude's selection as a Center of Excellence "recognizes both the enormous contribution that St. Jude has made over the last several decades in the study of animal influenza viruses, as well as our leadership role in this area." That contribution is expected to continue in that St. Jude will also be involved in evaluating anti-viral drug treatments and causes of drug resistance during its work in the NIAID- funded program.

The other five hospitals also designated as Centers of Excellence are the University of California in Los Angeles, the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Emory University in Atlanta, Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York and the University of Rochester in Rochester, N.Y.

Source:

St. Jude media report, http://www.stjude.org/media/0,2561,453_2086_22870,00.html




Reference research: business research and law research and sport research and recent update




Blog Skins Html