To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Body area networks (BANs) are networks of wireless sensors and medical devices embedded in clothing, worn on or implanted in the body, and have the potential to revolutionize healthcare by enabling pervasive healthcare. However, due to their critical applications affecting human health, challenges arise when designing them to ensure they are safe for the user, sustainable without requiring frequent battery replacements and secure from interference and malicious attacks. This book lays the foundations of how BANs can be redesigned from a cyber-physical systems perspective (CPS) to overcome these issues. Introducing cutting-edge theoretical and practical techniques and taking into account the unique environment-coupled characteristics of BANs, the book examines how we can re-imagine the design of safe, secure and sustainable BANs. It features real-world case studies, suggestions for further investigation and project ideas, making it invaluable for anyone involved in pervasive and mobile healthcare, telemedicine, medical apps and other cyber-physical systems.
In this book, which was originally published in 1985, Arto Salomaa gives an introduction to certain mathematical topics central to theoretical computer science: computability and recursive functions, formal languages and automata, computational complexity and cryptography. Without sacrificing readability, the presentation is essentially self-contained, with detailed proofs of all statements provided. Professor Salomaa is well known for his books in this area. The present work provides an insight into the basics, together with explanations of some of the more important developments in the field.
One of the first graph-theoretical problems to be given serious attention (in the 1950s) was the decision whether a given integer sequence is equal to the degree sequence of a simple graph (or graphical, for short). One method to solve this problem is the greedy algorithm of Havel and Hakimi, which is based on the swap operation. Another, closely related question is to find a sequence of swap operations to transform one graphical realization into another of the same degree sequence. This latter problem has received particular attention in the context of rapidly mixing Markov chain approaches to uniform sampling of all possible realizations of a given degree sequence. (This becomes a matter of interest in the context of the study of large social networks, for example.) Previously there were only crude upper bounds on the shortest possible length of such swap sequences between two realizations. In this paper we develop formulae (Gallai-type identities) for the swap-distances of any two realizations of simple undirected or directed degree sequences. These identities considerably improve the known upper bounds on the swap-distances.
In a paper published in this journal, Alon, Kohayakawa, Mauduit, Moreira and Rödl proved that the minimal possible value of the normality measure of an N-element binary sequence satisfies
for sufficiently large N, and conjectured that the lower bound can be improved to some power of N. In this note it is observed that a construction of Levin of a normal number having small discrepancy gives a construction of a binary sequence EN with (EN) = O((log N)2), thus disproving the conjecture above.
Written by noted quantum computing theorist Scott Aaronson, this book takes readers on a tour through some of the deepest ideas of maths, computer science and physics. Full of insights, arguments and philosophical perspectives, the book covers an amazing array of topics. Beginning in antiquity with Democritus, it progresses through logic and set theory, computability and complexity theory, quantum computing, cryptography, the information content of quantum states and the interpretation of quantum mechanics. There are also extended discussions about time travel, Newcomb's Paradox, the anthropic principle and the views of Roger Penrose. Aaronson's informal style makes this fascinating book accessible to readers with scientific backgrounds, as well as students and researchers working in physics, computer science, mathematics and philosophy.
The collection and analysis of observational and experimental data represent the main tools for assessing the presence, the extent, the nature, and the trend of discrimination phenomena. Data analysis techniques have been proposed in the last 50 years in the economic, legal, statistical, and, recently, in the data mining literature. This is not surprising, since discrimination analysis is a multidisciplinary problem, involving sociological causes, legal argumentations, economic models, statistical techniques, and computational issues. The objective of this survey is to provide a guidance and a glue for researchers and anti-discrimination data analysts on concepts, problems, application areas, datasets, methods, and approaches from a multidisciplinary perspective. We organize the approaches according to their method of data collection as observational, quasi-experimental, and experimental studies. A fourth line of recently blooming research on knowledge discovery based methods is also covered. Observational methods are further categorized on the basis of their application context: labor economics, social profiling, consumer markets, and others.
Most of the constructions of infinite words having polynomial subword complexity are quite complicated, e.g., sequences of Toeplitz, sequences defined by billiards in the cube, etc. In this paper, we describe a simple method for constructing infinite words w over a binary alphabet { a,b } with polynomial subword complexity pw. Assuming w contains an infinite number of a’s, our method is based on the gap function which gives the distances between consecutive b’s. It is known that if the gap function is injective, we can obtain at most quadratic subword complexity, and if the gap function is blockwise injective, we can obtain at most cubic subword complexity. Here, we construct infinite binary words w such that pw(n) = Θ(nβ) for any real number β > 1.
This chapter uses the Mass Observation Archive (MOA), a vast collection of qualitative data on many subject themes, as a case study to examine how the availability of new technologies and tools for research has changed the way in which information professionals can support the use of data of this nature in the humanities and social sciences. It explores the different ways in which research in these disciplines can be supported through digitization, and outlines how important it is to ensure that there is a ‘curatorial voice’ for the researcher in digital material, showing how this adds value to the resource. The chapter also details the various projects with which Mass Observation has been involved to open up and enhance the usability of the Archive. These include the JISC-funded Observing the 1980s Open Educational Resource project, which offers opportunities for the reuse of newly digitized material under a Creative Commons licence, and the SALDA project which produced sets of openly available Linked Data extracted from the records of the MOA Catalogue. By working closely with academics and information professionals on projects such as these, the authors of this chapter argue, they have been able to offer many new ways for researchers in the social sciences and the humanities and other disciplines to use and manipulate the collection.
Introduction
The availability of new technologies and tools for research in humanities and social sciences has changed the ways in which information professionals can support the use of qualitative data in humanities and social sciences. Recent years have seen a large increase in the number of digitization and metadata creation projects undertaken by libraries and archives across the world, underpinned by a firm acknowledgement from the research community that these resources are required in order to enhance and support work in various subject areas. Researchers are encouraged to use technologies to create cross-disciplinary and crossinstitutional collaborations in their work; and by easing accessibility to qualitative data resources, we can support these initiatives, as well as encourage the use of our unique and valuable resources.
This chapter focuses on scholars, rather than on all library users. In it I examine some of the key changes in scholarly practices and associated attitudes in recent years. What are some of the key aspects of the relationship between the academic library and those scholars who may make use of its collections and services? Against a shifting background of significant increases in the accessibility of a variety of information sources and services, how is that relationship changing? I will attempt to examine what it might mean to think of scholars as having the identity of ‘library users’, ultimately arguing that there has been a structural readjustment in the nature of the user's relationship with information services providers, including the library. The perspective presented in this chapter is rooted to some degree in the US higher education community. There, it has become clear in recent years that the principal differentiator among faculty members’ attitudes and practices is discipline, far more than institutional type, years in the field or other characteristics. In 2012, Ithaka S+R is conducting research programmes with components in both the USA and the UK. So far, these have identified no evidence of any essential differences in the views of academics in the UK and the USA that would bear substantively on the issues covered in this chapter.
Introduction
As previous chapters have made clear, scholars today have a vastly increased number of options available to them to meet their information services needs. The academic library has responded with a variety of new infrastructures, services and strategies. An understanding of the users’ views is ultimately vital for any information services organization that wishes to serve them.
Background
The nature of the scholar's relationship with information services organizations is, and always has been, multi-faceted. This relationship incorporates functions such as discovery of information, access to collections and the range of services necessary both to enable their use and to enable original research.
Traditionally, these functions were best, if not exclusively, provided in person. Discovery involved such tools as the card catalogue and reference collections. Collections of books, journals and other materials were usually developed for the ideal of locally maintained, on-site stacks. Services included the staffed reference desk, bibliographers with research expertise dedicated to individual fields and other advanced reference services.
The advent of digital communication has created challenges for publishers of scholarly materials; it has threatened to revolutionize the process of scholarly communication and change the fundamentals of the publishing process forever. But has it? This chapter investigates to what extent scholarly publishing has been affected by the transition to digital communication, what opportunities have been created and how the transition is shaping the future of the industry. It breaks down the publishing process into three stages – input, processing and output – to analyse how much each of these areas has been affected and if some areas of the publishing process have been affected more than others. It analyses the changing business models in the scholarly journals market and looks at the effect that the introduction of Open Access (OA) publishing has had on both the subscription business model and the way that the communication of research is being financed. It finds that scholarly publishers have undergone a huge transition over the last 20 years, moving from a slow, print-based model to purely digital delivery in many cases; but for all that change, the process of scholarly publishing (peer review, editorial review and the structure of a scientific paper) has changed very little. What has changed is the way that users are using and accessing the information, and the business models that have now developed for digital media, such as the Big Deal and Gold OA. Many scholarly publishers are still in the middle of a transition to true digital publishing and the mechanisms involved in scholarly communication have yet to take full advantage of many of the technologies available today, and so this industry will have to continue to adapt and change to meet the needs of the next generation of researchers.
Introduction
The publishing side of the scholarly communication process has developed over hundreds of years, with many crediting the invention of the Gutenberg printing press in around 1440 as the starting-point. This invention led to the mechanization of book making and the start of mass reproduction of intellectual works, which over time grew into the modern publishing industry. Many of the scientific publishers still trading today can trace their roots back many centuries and have developed alongside the growth of science as an area of interest and research, playing a role in the communication of its discoveries.
University research strategies make statements about research ambitions, but rarely speak directly about scholarly communications. At the same time, communication of all sorts has become central to a university, whether to support recruitment, present a public profile or respond to events. This chapter seeks to explore the relationship between institutional research strategies and scholarly communications and to see how each may have affected the other and how they might do so in the future. It describes the purpose and structure of an institutional research strategy, and how these are changing. It highlights the linkages between strategy, implementation plans and policies, where the latter encourage desired behaviours. In the context of scholarly communications, the research strategy is the public document in which an institution states its commitment to such forms of communication: that discovering new knowledge and sharing that discovery in meaningful ways are at the heart of the institution. The discussion then moves to the changing nature of scholarly communications, including the Open agenda, and questions how scholarly communications fits into the wider spectrum of institutional communications. The chapter concludes that there has probably been little direct connection between research strategies and approaches to scholarly communications, but that this is changing. Both institutions and individual researchers wish to demonstrate the quality, relevance and accessibility of their research, in order to be attractive to collaborators, funders and employers. Successful institutions will ensure that strategy and scholarly communications activities are mutually supportive, to the benefit of both their researchers and the organization.
Introduction
How have institutional research strategies affected scholarly communications, if at all?
How have changes in scholarly communications affected institutional research strategies?
This chapter addresses these two questions; and to that end it looks at the recent evolution of the institutional research strategy.
University research strategies (and their parent institutional strategies) have tended not to consider scholarly communication directly. Rather, they have tended to be statements about undertaking high-quality, relevant research and translating it into practice or other beneficial outcomes. It is implicit that the results of research will be disseminated, but little attention is paid to how, why and through what media.
At one level, this is neither surprising nor concerning. Indeed, the academic community might be more worried if their institutional strategy became too prescriptive.
The scholarly communications system has undergone a series of profound changes in the last decade, and change continues apace. Indeed, this book comes at a time when governments, research funders, learned societies and universities, as well as researchers themselves, are showing unprecedented levels of interest in how researchers communicate their findings. In the UK, the Finch Report, the government's response to it and the policies announced by the Research Councils have signalled a sharp acceleration in moves toward Open Access (OA). In Europe, the EU Commission has announced that OA will be a requirement for all publications arising from research funded under the Horizon 2020 programme, and that it will introduce a pilot scheme on access to and reuse of research data. It has also recommended that governments of the member states should introduce policies for OA to both publications and data arising from publicly funded research. In the USA, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued in February 2013 a policy memorandum directing Federal agencies to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication and requiring researchers to manage the digital data resulting from research.
Such developments indicate how important it is now to find ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of communications both between researchers themselves and between the research community and the many other people and organizations who are interested in their findings. Effective communication is essential if we are to reap the full benefits – in the form of tangible contributions to social welfare and economic growth, and also to the intellectual and cultural life of nations – that can and should arise from the substantial investments that governments, charities and others make in research.
The development of effective channels of communication between researchers across the globe has underpinned the growth in our understanding of the world for at least 350 years. The communication of theoretical and empirical findings through scientific journals and other publications has been at the heart of the scientific and broader research enterprise since Henry Oldenburg, the first Secretary of the Royal Society, created its Philosophical Transactions in 1665, defining its core functions as:
• registering research findings, their timing, and the person(s) responsible
• reviewing and certifying the findings before publication
Social media have been hailed as a significant opportunity for scholarly communications, offering researchers new and effective ways to discover and share knowledge. Tools such as blogs, wikis, Twitter and Facebook, as well as their underpinning principles such as crowdsourcing and the value of enhanced or networked data, have all been explored to varying extents by academics, librarians and publishers in their attempts to improve the efficiency of scholarly communications and to reach new or wider audiences. This chapter examines such use of social media and suggests that all of these groups use social media only where it mimics or reinforces their existing behaviours. For the most part, they adopt those elements of social media that make tasks easier or more efficient, but reshape tools or the way in which they are used in order to avoid challenging traditional cornerstones of scholarly communications, such as journal articles and peer review.
Introduction
Facebook was founded in 2004: by January 2009 it had 175 million active users; and by December 2011 it had 845 million – around 12% of the world's population. Twitter was launched in July 2006 and signed up its 100 millionth active user in September 2011. In September 2010, the five billionth photograph was added to Flickr's searchable database; the Tate group of four art galleries has a collection of just 65,000 works of art.4
These statistics show how social media have rapidly become a routine part of many people's personal and professional lives. This chapter explores how these new tools, and the behaviours that underpin their use, are being adopted within scholarly communications, and whether they are changing the way in which researchers and others share information and knowledge.
The social media landscape
Social media tools and technologies build upon the principles and practices of Web 2.0. These stress the move from static, proprietary systems to applications which ‘get better the more people use them’.5Web 2.0 focuses on tools which treat the user as a co-developer and on business models which seek to generate revenue not from sales of a product but from services or enhanced data.