科学网

 找回密码
  注册

tag 标签: credit

相关帖子

版块 作者 回复/查看 最后发表

没有相关内容

相关日志

NISO启动了贡献者角色分类(CRediT)计划
isechina 2020-5-14 09:53
2020年4月23日 —— 继2019年12月的声明之后, 美国国家信息标准组织(NISO) 宣布正式启动贡献者角色分类(CRediT)工作,将 贡献者角色分类法(Contributor Role Taxonomy-CRediT) 正式化并发展为ANSI/NISO标准。NISO成员对这项工作表示了强烈的支持。 首先,研究工作将通过一个小型工作组,正式确定现有分类中的14个贡献者角色,该工作组由目前CRediT主席、f1000研究的Liz Allen、肯特大学的Simon Kerridge和奥康奈尔咨询公司的Alison mcgonagole -O 'Connell领导。 今年晚些时候,将会发布关于初始CRediT标准和加入常委会标准的意见调查。 Liz Allen指出,“在创建贡献者角色分类法方面,学术界广泛的利益相关者提供了全面的支持,其目的是提高对研究贡献的透明性和可发现性。我们希望这种形式化更好地支持学术工作流程中的现有用户,并最终使其开发能够造福于更广泛的研究社区。” Alison McGonagle-O’connell表示同意,“我们的目标是使贡献者角色分类法实用和好用,避免误用,最重要的是,确保过程的严格性,CRediT标准如何能够最好地发展,以支持整个研究社区。” NISO的副执行董事Nettie Lagace说:“我们期待着与CRediT工作组和更广泛的社区团体合作,将这种重要的分类法发展成一种标准。我们很高兴NISO成员和非成员已经对分类法产生了如此浓厚的兴趣,我们相信,信用贡献者角色的正规化——以及在未来的扩展——将使分类法得到广泛采用和实现。” 关于CRediT CRediT(Contributor Roles Taxonomy)——贡献度角色分类法,是2014年推出的机器可读分类系统,认可14种类型的贡献。CRediT 旨在对贡献进行量化。目前包括细胞出版社、公共科学图书馆(PLoS)和牛津大学出版社在内的20多家期刊出版商,已在部分出版物中使用了CRediT。 更多CRediT分类法信息,请关注https://www.casrai.org/credit.html 附表1 CRediT贡献者角色分类信息 参考文献: https://niso.org/press-releases/2020/04/niso-launches-work-contributor-role-taxonomy-credit-initiative
个人分类: 期刊数据库|6120 次阅读|0 个评论
About Vulnerability and Surpass Yourself
lele6314 2016-1-14 20:24
It is not the critic who counts. It is not the man who sits and points out how the doer of deeds conld have done things better and how he falls and stumbles. The credit goes to the man in the arena, whose face is marred with dust and blood and swear. But when he's in the arena, at best he wins, and at worst he loses, but when he fails, when he loses, he does so daring greatly. ——Theodore Roosevelt So when you don't know how to challenge yourself, you should ask yourself: Who do you think you are? Vulnerability is the birthplace of innovation, creativity and change. It is the accurate measurement of courage.
3077 次阅读|0 个评论
Social media mining on credit industry in China
liwei999 2014-9-21 02:56
The purpose of this investigation is to collect the public opinions from Chinese social media on one of the most important industries in the financing world of China: Credit Card and its associated issues. Name brands such as Ali Pay, and Citi Bank are analyzed in this context. We all know China has seen continuous economic growth in the last three decades, unprecedented in human history. Just about 15 years ago, the Chinese people rarely heard of credit cards, online payment and personal credits: everything looked so remote and most all transactions were in cash only. Look at today. Look at the incredible IPO of Alibaba, who (among others) helped build the concept and practice of credits and online payment by a client base involving over a billion people. Chinese market is important for international banks too. Hence an accurate Chinese social media analysis on critical financial topics of credit cards will help them in their Chinese business as well. This study using real life automatic mining of social media big data shows that we have the state-of-the-art Chinese NLP (Natural Language Processing) technology that really works, in fact it is the only real-life fully automatic Chinese deep analysis system scaled up to the entire social media available in industry. Despite the anarchy and all kinds of jargon and ungrammaticality in Chinese social media, our system is able to make the best sense of the massive data to uncover true intelligence behind, including public opinions and sentiments and, more importantly, the underlying motivations behind the opinions/sentiments. The exercise below demonstrates a flavor of that. We have defined two related category topics for study: credit card (信用卡) and credit card fraud (信用卡欺诈, including all types of security issues). It is believed that these are topics that are of general interest to people in the financing world. The above summary represents data over the past 1-year Chinese social media from 9/15/2013 up to 9/15/2014, which has very limited Weibo data due to the data cost constraints, but includes almost all other Chinese social media sources such as 天涯,豆瓣,百度帖吧,淘宝, etc, excluding WeChat (微信) due to its being largely private data, not open to anyone for public mining and analysis (fortunately or unfortunately). As it shows, the topic “credit card” is mentioned 1.4 million times and“credit card fraud” 139k times, about 1/10 of the former topic. It shows that fraud is indeed a significant subtopic with credit cards which people are concerned about. Also noticeable in the summary is the associated net-sentiment measures (a metric representing the ratio of positive comments versus negative comments, an indicator of the public image of a brand or topic in people's mind as represented by social media ) : 28% for “credit card” and -41% for “credit card fraud”. Based on our past metrics on different brands and topics , 28% is fair for a neutral category topic and it shows that people still like and adopt credit cards despite some concerns related to them . -41% is a very negative net sentiment for a topic, which is natural in this case because the fraud topic itself is a negative thing we are investigating. In the Timeline trends graph above, we can see the topics' ups and downs over the year in Chinese social media. Looks like near the end of 2013 and around March and April 2014, the topic was hot. We can drill down to show what events caused the spike of the topic in social media at those times, if needed. The next graph on Crosstab shows our association analysis of the category topics with some known brands we chose to investigate: 支付宝 (Ali Pay, Alibaba’s famous payment system,China’s Paypal) 建行(China’s Construction Bank) Citi (花旗) HSBC (汇丰) Deutsche Bank (德银). The category association analysis gives a quick view on how serious an issue is associated with a brand and how one brand is compared with other brands for that issue. If an issue is serious, we should drill down to analyze what is going on behind the numbers. There are tools and widgets handy in our system to help with all kinds of drill-down to the relevant data at will and a variety of ways of looking at the data from different perspectives with different constraints to reveal the cause-effect or other insightful relationships. For the credit fraudulent topic, the table below shows that the two Chinese brands are deeply involved in the issue, with more concerns on Alibaba’s system. More specifically, we have 5k mentions related to some type of fraud out of 67.7k topic data for Alibaba’s payment system Ali Pay and 1.8k mentions out of over 100k topic data for China Construction Bank. This makes sense as Alibaba’s system handles online payment exclusively, with so many transactions, by so many online stores, that it seems more subject to fraud events. As for Citi, the situation is not bad, 166 mentions out of 6990 credit topic data; this is very comparable to HSBC, 114 mentions out of 5629 topic data. That is the overall picture of the issue in comparing brands. The next two graphs are Word Clouds on the themes and emotions related to the topics. The major sentiments on credit card are positive, many Chinese consumers talk about “support”(支持), “like”(喜欢), “use”(用), “trust”(信赖) , and ”enjoy”(享受) with regards to credit cards, and generally regard them as “good stuff” (好东西), the negative sentiments are far less, including“NOT support” (不支持), “NOT accept” (不接受) and “does not work” (不行). The subtopic “credit card fraud” is associated, quite naturally, with lots of “worry” (担心), “ not well” (不善), “high risks” (危险) and “issues” (问题). Different from many other teams who claim to do sentiment analysis, our system does not just mine emotional sentiments, we can reveal reasons behind sentiments as well: why people like or dislike something. This type of insights are far more complicated as there are thousands of reasons although there are only a couple of major sentiment types such as positive or negative (or neutral) and maybe a dozen sub-types such as hate, anger, disappointment, love, like, thankfulness, or mixed feelings. However, the uncovered reasons and motivations behind the sentiments are far more valuable and actionable for business decision making. This is shown in our Likes and Dislikes clouds and pie-charts shown below. There are lots of interesting insights here and some may be worth drilling down for further analysis using our tool. Let us focus on the top insights. From the pie charts, we see the top reasons why people like credit cards are: 方便(convenience),优惠(promotions),行(works). The top dislikes are: 被盗(stolen), 逾期 (pass deadline), 诈骗(fraud), 费(fees), 伪造(fake). These all seem to be common sense. The point is that these factors can change in time and order, reflecting the social sentiments and consumers’ opinions and concerns at the time. For example, “promotions (优惠)” are almost equally important as“convenience” in consumers’ social talk as top reasons for using credit cards,this gives confirmation that the incentives in credit card promotion campaigns must have worked and there are good reasons to keep promoting. On the negative side, we see almost 50% of the top 10 dislikes are related to some type of fraud and about 30% related to concerns of fines and fees. This type of insight and comparison are exactly what credit card companies are looking for,, who need to address such concerns in order. In general, the results look really impressive and the quality is good. We can drill down to details interactively in our live demo if interested. 【置顶:立委科学网博客NLP博文一览(定期更新版)】
个人分类: 社媒挖掘|5475 次阅读|0 个评论
我为中国骄傲!
热度 3 zuojun 2013-6-25 07:43
谁能在1949 年10 月1 日预料到,中国(的股市)能带动全球(一起坐滑梯)? World stocks fall amid China credit concerns Stock markets fall after Chinese central bank lets credit rates rise to curb informal lending http://news.yahoo.com/world-stocks-fall-amid-china-104316888.html
个人分类: Tea Time/Coffee Break|3391 次阅读|5 个评论
[转载]学术界的不正之风
yonglishi 2013-1-18 11:17
本文引用地址: http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-709494-654284.html 学术届抢credit的事情天天都在发生,而且很多事情都发生在我本人身上。最常见的是在文章末尾加上"Note in proof" 或者"Note added", 告诉别人自己在做工作的同时还有另外一个工作也在考虑相同的问题,在有重叠的部分结果一致。我至今为止有4个工作加了Note。学术届这样的“撞车”非常普遍,这些工作基本都是同时出来的,所以不可能说谁抄袭了谁的想法。加上这个Note,有二个作用:第一,尊重对方的工作和贡献; 第二,也表明自己结果的正确性。 严格来说,上面提到的例子并不算抢credit。在学术界,这是正常的做法,大家都可以接受。但是也有一些不当之风,下面列举几个常见的。 1. 论文中不正确引用别人的工作 。比如通过阅读某个文章,得到了某个想法,写了一篇文章。但是在写文章的时候压根就不提这篇文章,反而说这是自己独立提出来的想法。对于见识广博的审稿人来说,他一般会指出来,然后要求作者在恰当的地方引用这篇文章。我的博士后合作导师就遇到过这样一个事情,有一个日本组写了一篇文章(2009年),想法和我导师2008年的文章大致相同,但是没有引用我导师的文章。后来审稿人提出来要作者引用这篇文章。您猜怎么着,他确实引用了,但是是在一个最不起眼的地方引用了这篇文章。这个组希望向别人证明他们是第一个想到这个想法的。我本人也遇到过这样一个事情。我们在2011年发表了一篇Phys. Rev. Lett.的文章,我们提出一个新的哈密顿来研究量子点的性质,后来(2012年)另外一个组写了一篇类似的文章(Phys. Rev. B),整个文章讨论的内容和我的文章几乎完全一样,只是考虑的场稍微不同。作者在介绍哈密頓的时候压根就不提我们的工作,只是在一个最不显眼的地方引用了我们的文章。 所以我的一个合作者说"everyone is lying",算是无可奈何。 2. 学术报告中不准确引用/引述别人的工作 。在学术报告中,有些老师除了自己的文章,别的参考文献通常不会在ppt中列出来。在做报告的时候,有些老师有意无意会把别人的想法说成是自己的想法,总是用"我们发现什么什么"或者"我们证明什么什么"。有好几次我都举手提问:"这个想法很好,是你们第一个提出来的吗"? 他才告诉我,这是别人首先做的,他们的计算结果别人的一致。无论这些人出于有意还是无意,这个做法很有误导性。我读博士的时候也曾经犯过这样的毛病,我的导师批评过我很多次,他说这是对同行缺少起码的尊重,或者他会明确告诉你,这不是你做的,是别人做的。所以在以后我严格遵守他的教诲,在所有该给出参考文献的地方都给出来,是我的我会说是我们做的,不是我的,我绝对不会说是我证明的。 抢credit的例子很多,小到我们这些普通的研究者,大到Nobel奖得主,比如老杨和老李。中外莫如此。据我的观察,中国人似乎表现得更加露骨一些。毕竟,每个人都有私心。但是这些终究不是正常之风,长久不了。你一个人在一个小的报告中说这是你个做的那个是你做的,内行们还是看得清清楚楚,明明白白。写这个博客,不是为了批评某个老师如何如何,而是希望这种现象可以引起所有研究者的注意,包括老师和学生们。“上帝的归上帝,凯撒的归凯撒”,是你的,终究会是你的,不是你的,莫要强求。把自己的心放端正了,把心思放在学术上,而不是放在这种小伎俩上。
1782 次阅读|0 个评论
[转载]Science Blog 2012年06月08日 20:12 (星期五)
xupeiyang 2012-6-8 20:26
http://scienceblog.com/ Financial mania: Why bankers and politicians failed to heed warnings of the credit crisis Are Sweden’s berry pickers actually slaves? Alzheimer’s vaccine trial a success UN health agency warns of risks from growing resistance to gonorrhoea treatment Me so mothy: Virgin male moths think they’re hot when they’re not Vampire jumping spiders identify victims by their antennae Anti-TNFs can increase the risk of shingles by up to 75 percent Meditation practice may cut risk for heart disease in teens
个人分类: 科学博客|1551 次阅读|0 个评论
教育科研之品牌信用
zhangt10 2009-11-4 09:26
这一阵子满世界的飞,也没有心情打理这里。在国内时碰到很不上道的人和事,火气一直都没消。涉及的还是世交,说起来是当自家的孩子看不计较,也算让我吃一堑长一智-某些人不仅不能信任还要提防其恶意,可毕竟还是很伤感情。前几天和朋友说起来,其实圈子是如何之小,问两三人就能晓得的底细,也是我疏忽了。与人为善虽是常道,碰到恶形恶状的,总不能白吃亏,自然我也会把负面的反馈加进圈子里去的。说起来这些有关的信息,也就是很常见的品牌信用了。 近来种种的风波,让我想起了一年前和某师兄讨论的母校专业现在排名和九十年代初鼎盛的反差。师兄关心的是与清华北大的特殊地位相比起来母校生源的起点不同问题。而我想到的是社会的演变如何成功的改变了学术的风气-由理想的纯真到现实的世故。当时我们各自提出的关键,一个有关等级分明的资源分配,一个有关忽悠成风的信用危机。说起来师兄其实是比我要乐观的多。资源的问题比起信用来,更容易直接解决。我想近期的很多人才计划,也算是用资源来试图解决问题的一种方式吧。 而从最近涂博悲剧的反应看来,品牌信用的概念还是相当的没有受到重视。而在已发展国家的商业运行中来看,信用其实是很重要的数值。企业也罢国家也罢都有专业的评估师衡量哪些是AAA哪些是A-。就不知道有没有人对科技和教育机构的诚信值在国际上给过评估呢?科技教育的所谓5C又可以用什么参数衡量呢? 5C-品质(Character)能力(Capacity)资本(Capital)抵押(Collateral)条件(Condition)
个人分类: 生活点滴|3560 次阅读|1 个评论

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-1 00:57

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部