自然评价：人工智能驱动下的学术成果评价模式重构

学术成果评价作为科研项目评审、人才评价、期刊评价、机构评价等活动的基础，是学术评价体系的重中之重，也是科研管理的关键环节之一。当前，我国学术成果评价模式存在“同行评议黑箱”“引文动机模糊”“评价数据间接且片面”等弊端，阻碍了学术创新，也与当下建构自主知识体系的战略相悖。而近年来人工智能等技术在数据、算法、算力上的突破性发展，特别是判别式模型和生成式模型在机器翻译、文本分类、文本摘要、情感分析、问答系统等领域日益成熟的应用，为传统学术成果评价模式的革新带来契机，为实现更加科学、多元与智能的学术成果评价提供了充分可能。基于对现有学术成果评价模式不足与人工智能应用契合度的分析，文章提出学术成果评价新模式——自然评价。自然评价模式是人工智能与学术成果评价的深度融合，既是对以往同行评议、文献计量、网络计量、替代计量等传统评价模式的批判性继承与发展，也是一种突破与革新。具体而言，自然评价是基于学术共同体在各种学术活动中自然产生的全量化的学术痕迹大数据，将人工智能技术应用于学术成果知识内容和学术共同体学术痕迹数据的语义理解与自动分析中，从而动态形成评价判断，并服务于知识创新与学术进步的一种评价模式。...     

Using structural topic modeling to gain insight into challenges faced by leaders

This paper leverages technological and methodological advances in natural language processing to advance our understanding and approaches to leadership research by introducing structural topic models (STM) to researchers wanting to inductively code massive amounts of unstructured texts. Specifically, we illustrate the application of STM applied to a large corpus (N ≈ 8000) of unstructured text responses from a diverse sample of leaders to inductively generate a classification system of leader challenges and simultaneously examine whether the challenges being experienced by leaders covary with leader characteristics. Overall, we identify nine central leader challenges. Results indicate that certain leader challenges are more prevalent depending on the leader’s characteristics (e.g., gender), and that two challenges, Daily Management Activities and Communication, were significantly related to boss’ ratings of performance. We also highlight additional applications of this technique to aid leadership researchers who wish to inductively derive meaning from large amounts of unstructured texts.     

A comparison of two versus four sterile water injections for the relief of back pain in labour: A multicentre randomised equivalence trial

BackgroundRecent trials demonstrated the safety and efficacy of sterile water injections to provide relief from labour back pain. While four injections is the most common approach variations in technique, such as employing two injections, are also used.AimTo determine if the analgesic effect of two sterile water injections is clinically equivalent to four.Methods238 women in labour with a Visual Analogue Scale pain score (VAS) of 70 millimetres (mm) (0 = no pain; 100 = worst pain imaginable) were randomised to two or four sterile water injections. The primary outcome was pain measured on a VAS at 30 min post treatment. A priori margin of equivalence was set at ±10 mm. Secondary outcomes included the likelihood of achieving an at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain, birth and neonatal outcomes.ResultsAt 30 min post-injection the difference in VAS scores between the techniques was ?5.97 (95% Confidence Interval [CI] ?13.18–1.22). As the lower end of the CI exceeds the margin of ?10 mm equivalence was not demonstrated. Both techniques achieved an at least 30% reduction in pain in over 75% of participants though duration of effect was longer in the four injection group. There was no difference in other birth related secondary outcomes.ConclusionFour injections provided a margin of benefit over two injections in level and duration of analgesia.DiscussionFour injections remains the technique of choice though two injections still provided significant pain relief and would be suitable where it was not possible or desirable to provide four.