Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 11/07 00:33 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 10/07 10:55 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 04/07 20:48 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 03/07 17:40 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:50 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:47 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:46 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 14:08 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 13:12 +1 Re: Smartocracy
Latest posts
- 11/07 00:33 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 10/07 10:55 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 04/07 20:48 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 03/07 17:40 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:50 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:47 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 17/06 00:46 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 14:08 +1 Re: Smartocracy
- 16/06 13:12 +1 Re: Smartocracy
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Smartocracy
-
Here are more thesis papers:
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf ———————————————————————————————————————- Simulating Network Influence Algorithms Using
Particle-Swarms: PageRank and PageRank-Priors
Marko A. Rodriguez Johan Bollen
Abstract
A particle-swarm is a set of indivisible processing elements that traverse a network in order to perform a distributed function. This paper will describe a particular implementation of a particle-swarm that can simulate the behavior of the popular PageRank algorithm in both its global-rank and relative-rank incarnations. PageRank is compared against the particleswarm method on artificially generated scale-free networks of 1,000 nodes constructed using a common gamma value, = 2.5. The running time of the particle-swarm algorithm is O(|P| + |P|t) where |P| is the size of the particle population and t is the number of particle propagation iterations. The particle-swarm method is shown to be useful due to its ease of extension and running time. ——————————————————————————————————————— -M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf ——————————————————————————————- Advances Towards a
Societal-Scale Decision-Support System
Marko Antonio Rodriguez
ABSTRACT
Collective intelligence has been defined as the ability of a group to provide more effective solutions to problems than could be otherwise provided by any of its individual members working alone. Social structures are the means by which humans are able to synergistically combine their efforts to provide high quality solutions to the problems facing the group. Over time, these structures have grown in scale and complexity to encompass political institutions that span vast landscapes of heterogeneous individuals to militaristic forms capable of orchestrating effective large-scale behavioral feats. With computer and network technologies, the potential for more advanced societal-scale information-processing systems is now possible such that a general-purpose societal-scale decision-support system may begin to be
envisioned. Unlike typical group decision-support research, a societal-scale system is faced with both a heterogeneous user population and problem-space. In designing such a system it is important to understand how the ’collective’s mind’ is modeled via a shared mental map of the group and how the ’collective’s mindset’ is maintained over fluctuating participation levels of its constituent members. Methods in both
problem-space partitioning and group preference modeling are presented within a theoretical and design framework to further the potential development of a societal-scale decision-support system capable of providing synergistically derived solutions to any representable problem. In concert, all of these ideas provide the foundation for the implementation of societal-scale decision-making system in a real-world context. —————————————————————————————————————————— -M:http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf ——————————————————————————————————————————- Advances towards a General-Purpose Societal-Scale
Human-Collective Problem-Solving Engine
Published in the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Proceedings, IEEE SMC, 2004
Published in the 23rd European Annual Conference on Human Decision Making and Manual Control Proceedings, 2004
Marko A. Rodriguez
Computer Science Department
University of California, Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CA, U.S.A
okram@soe.ucsc.edu
Abstract – Human collective intelligence has proved itself as an important factor in a society’s ability to accomplish large-scale behavioral feats. As societies have grown in population-size, individuals have seen a decrease in their ability to actively participate in the problem-solving processes of the group. Representative decision-making structures have been used as a modern solution to society’s inadequate information-processing infrastructure. With computer and network technologies being further embedded within the fabric of society, the implementation of a general-purpose societal-scale
human-collective problem-solving engine is envisioned as a means of furthering the collective-intelligence potential of society. This paper provides both a novel framework for creating collective intelligence systems and a method for implementing a representative and
expertise system based on social-network theory. ————————————————————————————————————————————- comments please.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss,
we have limited amount of time..
+1
-
MG wrote:
> -Give me the basic facts/opinions abstracted that you wan’t to discuss, > we have limited amount of time.
-M: They are obviously supporters of RD. Find where thay are critical of DD, and we can discuss that.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf
-Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in the internet?
http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero.
And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either.
What are you takling about???http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf
-Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better.
Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.
+1
-
MG wrote:
> http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/particle-modeling.pdf > > -Hey, all I see is theoretical stuff about the power of pageranking in > the internet? > > http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/thesis.pdf
-M: No, its not PageRanking the internet, its PageRanking human networks.
>mG: -OK, nothing here against individual participation. If all are participating, the decision errors are zero. And it is good that non particpaters delegate their voting power. Can’t argue with that either. What are you takling about???
-M: Marko Rodriguez(the writer) is a participant on Smartocracy. As soon as I get admission to the group, I will be challenging him on this point. He is a techie who doesn’t understand republicanism.
> http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~okram/papers/humancollective-smc-hdm2004.pdf > >mG: -Same story again, what in it is against the AD-model?
-M: Because its not DD, its RD.
>mG: All I see in these thesises is that the current system with representation is ineffective and that participation on the indivdual level is better. Delegation is god but should be dynamic instead of static. No news here.
-M: Yes, SD2-Smartocracy would be participatory.
- There would be an option for a direct vote.
- There would be an option to choose delegates.
- If no delegates are chosen, delegate representation would be defaulted to one’s general trustee choices.
- If no general trustees are chosen, the algorithm chooses trustees.
Since leaders/representitives are needed even in a DD system, the only difference here is in the centrality algorithm of choice.(I said from the begining that the centrality algoritm is the main issue.)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lot
like AD. Point.
Let us know your success with Rodriquez…
+1
-
MG wrote:
> Ju can call AD whatever you like but to mee smartocracy looks a lot > like AD. Point.
-M: ‘looks a lot like AD’ – vague. Parlement/EC-D looks a lot like AD.
Any system under SD2 ‘looks a lot like AD’.So? Now lets talk about important details:
Initally, Smartocracy only selected general reps with PageRank.(like SD2)
Then it was changed to have specific issues with reps. My proposed SD2-Smartocracy would have both, with even a DD-like input option.Well? Do you like this?
>mG: Let us know your success with Rodriquez…
-M: OK.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
-
-
-M: They are obviously supportes of RD.
Find where they are critical of DD.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting to wiki in order to create nice base for such projects?
ATB,
Gale
+1
-
illegale wrote:
> Hey Mark. Would you eventually paste these articules you are quoting to > wiki in order to create nice base for such projects? ATB, Gale
-M: OK, unless someone posts thes articles there first.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
