Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012360261 = product of:
  0.024720522 = sum of:
    0.024720522 = product of:
      0.049441043 = sum of:
        0.049441043 = weight(_text_:22 in 486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049441043 = score(doc=486,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15973409 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 486, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=486)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2022 14:01:14

0.010976008 = product of:
  0.021952016 = sum of:
    0.021952016 = product of:
      0.043904033 = sum of:
        0.043904033 = weight(_text_:i in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043904033 = score(doc=423,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.25518858 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 2021, sharing content is easier than ever. Our lingua franca is visual: memes, infographics, TikToks. Our references cross borders and platforms, shared and remixed a hundred different ways in minutes. Digital culture is collective by default and has us together all around the world. But as the internet reaches its "dirty 30s," what happens when pieces of digital culture that have been saved, screenshotted, and reposted for years need to retire? Let's dig into the story of one of these artifacts: The Lenna image. The Lenna image may be relatively unknown in pop culture today, but in the engineering world, it remains an icon. I first encountered the image in an undergrad class, then grad school, and then all over the sites and software I use every day as a tech worker like Github, OpenCV, Stack Overflow, and Quora. To understand where the image is today, you have to understand how it got here. So, I decided to scrape Google scholar, search, and reverse image search results to track down thousands of instances of the image across the internet (see more in the methods section).
In the 21st century, the image has remained a common sight in classrooms and on TV, including a feature on Silicon Valley in 2014. Pushback towards the use of the image also grew in the 2010s leading up to 2019, when the Losing Lena documentary was released. Forsén shares her side of the story and asks for her image to be retired: "I retired from modelling a long time ago. It's time I retired from tech, too. We can make a simple change today that creates a lasting change for tomorrow. Let's commit to losing me." After the film's release, many of my female colleagues shared stories about their own encounters with the image throughout their careers. When one of the only women this well referenced, respected, and remembered in your field is known for a nude photo that was taken of her and is now used without her consent, it inevitably shapes the perception of the position of women in tech and the value of our contributions. The film called on the engineering community to stop their spread of the image and use alternatives instead. This led to efforts to remove the image from textbooks and production code and a slow, but noticeable decline in the image's use for research.

Content

"Having known Lenna for almost a decade, I have struggled to understand what the story of the image means for what tech culture is and what it is becoming. To me, the crux of the Lenna story is how little power we have over our data and how it is used and abused. This threat seems disproportionately higher for women who are often overrepresented in internet content, but underrepresented in internet company leadership and decision making. Given this reality, engineering and product decisions will continue to consciously (and unconsciously) exclude our needs and concerns. While social norms are changing towards non-consensual data collection and data exploitation, digital norms seem to be moving in the opposite direction. Advancements in machine learning algorithms and data storage capabilities are only making data misuse easier. Whether the outcome is revenge porn or targeted ads, surveillance or discriminatory AI, if we want a world where our data can retire when it's outlived its time, or when it's directly harming our lives, we must create the tools and policies that empower data subjects to have a say in what happens to their data. including allowing their data to die."

0.010754247 = product of:
  0.021508494 = sum of:
    0.021508494 = product of:
      0.04301699 = sum of:
        0.04301699 = weight(_text_:i in 408) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04301699 = score(doc=408,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.25003272 = fieldWeight in 408, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=408)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010473971 = product of:
  0.020947943 = sum of:
    0.020947943 = product of:
      0.10473971 = sum of:
        0.10473971 = weight(_text_:authors in 449) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10473971 = score(doc=449,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.50368255 = fieldWeight in 449, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=449)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Email is the primary method of communication with authors of scientific publications. This study sought to measure the reliability, over time, of contact email addresses from biomedical publications, particularly depending on email type. Emails were written to randomly selected email addresses from publications in MEDLINE, and email bounce rates were modeled probabilistically. The use of personal email addresses was quantified and compared to the use of other types of email addresses. Eighteen percent of authors' contact email addresses in MEDLINE were estimated to be invalid. A steadily growing share of email addresses was personal: 32% of all new email addresses in MEDLINE in 2018 were of this kind. These email addresses were less likely to be invalid than email addresses from other types of providers. While the percentage of invalid email addresses was significant, it was lower than previously estimated. Personal email addresses are taking an increasingly more important role by supplying more reliable email addresses to scientists. To mitigate the problem of invalid email addresses, institutions should provide email forwarding, scientific directories should offer the possibility of contacting authors, or scientific authors should use more stable email addresses.

0.008961872 = product of:
  0.017923744 = sum of:
    0.017923744 = product of:
      0.03584749 = sum of:
        0.03584749 = weight(_text_:i in 5962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03584749 = score(doc=5962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17204544 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 5962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0052369856 = product of:
  0.010473971 = sum of:
    0.010473971 = product of:
      0.052369855 = sum of:
        0.052369855 = weight(_text_:authors in 5945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052369855 = score(doc=5945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20794787 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045614466 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5945)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In using the Internet to solve everyday problems, older adults tend to find fewer correct answers compared to younger adults. Some authors have argued that these differences could be explained by age-related decline. The present study aimed to analyze the relationship between web-searching navigation and users' age, considering the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and frequency of Internet and personal computer use. The intent was to identify differences due to age and not to other variables (that is, cognitive decline, expertise with the tool). Eighteen students (18-30?years) and 18 older adults (60-75?years) took part in the experiment. Inclusion criteria were the frequent use of computers and a web-searching activity; the older adults performed the Mini-Mental State Examination to exclude cognitive impairment. Participants were requested to perform the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test 2nd ed. to measure their IQ level, and nine everyday web-searching tasks of differing complexity. The results showed that older participants spent more time on solving tasks than younger participants, but with the same accuracy as young people. Furthermore, nonverbal IQ improved performance in terms of time among the older participants. Age did not influence web-searching behavior in users with normal expertise and intelligence.