PUMA publications for /tag/DatabasesWed Apr 21 11:14:52 CEST 2021Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLAoct4618--620Shared first authorship1072019Authorship Biomedical Databases Humans Impact Journal Periodicals Research autorenschaft bibliometrie epistemologie erstautoren standards In most scientific communities, the order of author names on a publication serves to assign credit and responsibility. Unless authors are presented in alphabetical order, it is assumed that the first author contributes the most and the last author is the driving force, both intellectually and financially, behind the research. Many, but not all, journals individually delineate what it means to be a contributing author and the nature of each author's role. But what does this mean when a paper has co-first authors? How are academic librarians going to handle questions surrounding co-first authorship in an era in which author metrics are important for career advancement and tenure? In this commentary, the authors look at the growing trend of co-first authorship and what this means for database searchers.Mon Sep 21 11:45:55 CEST 2020AthensProceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshopsmar238–243CoMoRea '18How a Pattern-based Privacy System Contributes to Improve Context Recognition2018access_control complex_event_processing databases pattern_concealing privacy stream_processing As Smart Devices have access to a lot of user-preferential data, they come in handy in any situation. Although such data—as well as the knowledge which can be derived from it—is highly beneficial as apps are able to adapt their services appropriate to the respective context, it also poses a privacy threat. Thus, a lot of research work is done regarding privacy. Yet, all approaches obfuscate certain attributes which has a negative impact on context recognition and thus service quality. Therefore, we introduce a novel access control mechanism called PATRON. The basic idea is to control access to information patterns. For instance, a person suffering from diabetes might not want to reveal his or her unhealthy eating habit, which can be derived from the pattern "rising blood sugar level" → "adding bread units". Such a pattern which must not be discoverable by some parties (e.g., insurance companies) is called private pattern whereas a pattern which improves an app's service quality is labeled as public pattern. PATRON employs different techniques to conceal private patterns and, in case of available alternatives, selects the one with the least negative impact on service quality, such that the recognition of public patterns is supported as good as possible.Mon Feb 19 14:58:22 CET 2018Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (FG), 2013 10th IEEE International Conference and Workshops on1--8Introducing the RECOLA multimodal corpus of remote collaborative and affective interactions2013Databases Recola, Mon Feb 19 14:58:22 CET 2018IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing15--17The semaine database: Annotated multimodal records of emotionally colored conversations between a person and a limited agent32012Databases Semaine, Mon Feb 19 14:58:22 CET 2018Interspeech1517--1520A database of German emotional speech.52005Databases Emo-DB, Tue Sep 12 11:01:57 CEST 2017Science, Technology, \& Human Values2280-305How Does One “Open” Science? Questions of Value in Biological Research422017databases forschungsdaten motivation sharing software Open Science policies encourage researchers to disclose a wide range of outputs from their work, thus codifying openness as a specific set of research practices and guidelines that can be interpreted and applied consistently across disciplines and geographical settings. In this paper, we argue that this “one-size-fits-all” view of openness sidesteps key questions about the forms, implications, and goals of openness for research practice. We propose instead to interpret openness as a dynamic and highly situated mode of valuing the research process and its outputs, which encompasses economic as well as scientific, cultural, political, ethical, and social considerations. This interpretation creates a critical space for moving beyond the economic definitions of value embedded in the contemporary biosciences landscape and Open Science policies, and examining the diversity of interests and commitments that affect research practices in the life sciences. To illustrate these claims, we use three case studies that highlight the challenges surrounding decisions about how––and how best––to make things open. These cases, drawn from ethnographic engagement with Open Science debates and semistructured interviews carried out with UK-based biologists and bioinformaticians between 2013 and 2014, show how the enactment of openness reveals judgments about what constitutes a legitimate intellectual contribution, for whom, and with what implications. DatabasesCommunity for tag(s) Databases