Browsing by Subject "Infrastructure"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Bibliographic Scan of Digital Scholarly Communication Infrastructure
    (Educopia Institute, 2020-05) Lewis, David W.
    This bibliography scan covers a lot of ground. In it, I have attempted to capture relevant recent literature across the whole of the digital scholarly communications infrastructure. I have used that literature to identify significant projects and then document them with descriptions and basic information. Structurally, this review has three parts. In the first, I begin with a diagram showing the way the projects reviewed fit into the research workflow; then I cover a number of topics and functional areas related to digital scholarly communication. I make no attempt to be comprehensive, especially regarding the technical literature; rather, I have tried to identify major articles and reports, particularly those addressing the library community. The second part of this review is a list of projects or programs arranged by broad functional categories. The third part lists individual projects and the organizations—both commercial and nonprofit—that support them. I have identified 206 projects. Of these, 139 are nonprofit and 67 are commercial. There are 17 organizations that support multiple projects, and six of these—Artefactual Systems, Atypon/Wiley, Clarivate Analytics, Digital Science, Elsevier, and MDPI—are commercial. The remaining 11—Center for Open Science, Collaborative Knowledge Foundation (Coko), LYRASIS/DuraSpace, Educopia Institute, Internet Archive, JISC, OCLC, OpenAIRE, Open Access Button, Our Research (formerly Impactstory), and the Public Knowledge Project—are nonprofit.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Biden’s infrastructure plan targets lead pipes that threaten public health across the US
    (The Conversation US, Inc., 2021-05-04) Filippelli, Gabriel; Earth and Environmental Sciences, School of Science
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Climate change threatens drinking water quality across the Great Lakes
    (The Conversation US, Inc., 2020-04-29) Filippeli, Gabriel; Ortiz, Joseph D.; Earth and Environmental Sciences, School of Science
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Community and Art
    (2021-05) Haymaker, Shawn; Misluk, Eileen
    Community may hold different meanings to different people and situations, which may or may not be bound by physical space. Community is not well defined and is especially difficult to define in literacy research. It was hypothesized the definition of community would include similarities on a broader scale, although there may be differences that reflect diverse cultural traits on a smaller scale. This study was a parallel mixed methods research study that utilized a systematic literature review and a convenient survey design aimed to understand how community-based providers define the term “community” within their work. Connection, support, commonality, were among the highest mentioned when asked in the survey, “what does community mean to you?” Listening, dialogue, and communication were important key elements when asked, “what makes community thrive?” The survey results indicated sense of belonging and bonding of like minds were the most important aspects of community, as well as, connection, support, and common values, ideals and traits were important factors in defining community. A guideline for clinicians was provided as they define community in their work across the world, cultures, and ethnicities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Social-Ecological-Infrastructural Systems Framework for Interdisciplinary Study of Sustainable City Systems
    (Wiley, 2012-12-01) Ramaswami, Anu; Weible, Christopher; Main, Deborah; Heikkila, Tanya; Siddiki, Saba; Duvall, Andrew; Pattison, Andrew; Bernard, Meghan
    Cities are embedded within larger-scale engineered infrastructures (e.g., electric power, water supply, and transportation networks) that convey natural resources over large distances for use by people in cities. The sustainability of city systems therefore depends upon complex, cross-scale interactions between the natural system, the transboundary engineered infrastructures, and the multiple social actors and institutions that govern these infrastructures. These elements, we argue, are best studied in an integrated manner using a novel social-ecological-infrastructural systems (SEIS) framework. In the biophysical subsystem, the SEIS framework integrates urban metabolism with life cycle assessment to articulate transboundary infrastructure supply chain water, energy, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission footprints of cities. These infrastructure footprints make visible multiple resources (water, energy, materials) used directly or indirectly (embodied) to support human activities in cities. They inform cross-scale and cross-infrastructure sector strategies for mitigating environmental pollution, public health risks and supply chain risks posed to cities. In the social subsystem, multiple theories drawn from the social sciences explore interactions between three actor categories—individual resource users, infrastructure designers and operators, and policy actors—who interact with each other and with infrastructures to shape cities toward sustainability outcomes. Linking of the two subsystems occurs by integrating concepts, theories, laws, and models across environmental sciences/climatology, infrastructure engineering, industrial ecology, architecture, urban planning, behavioral sciences, public health, and public affairs. Such integration identifies high-impact leverage points in the urban SEIS. An interdisciplinary SEIS-based curriculum on sustainable cities is described and evaluated for its efficacy in promoting systems thinking and interdisciplinary vocabulary development, both of which are measures of effective frameworks.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Sustainability considerations for clinical and translational research informatics infrastructure
    (Cambridge University Press, 2018-10) Obeid, Jihad S.; Tarczy-Hornoch, Peter; Harris, Paul A.; Barnett, William K.; Anderson, Nicholas R.; Embi, Peter J.; Hogan, William R.; Bell, Douglas S.; McIntosh, Leslie D.; Knosp, Boyd; Tachinardi, Umberto; Cimino, James J.; Wehbe, Firas H.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    A robust biomedical informatics infrastructure is essential for academic health centers engaged in translational research. There are no templates for what such an infrastructure encompasses or how it is funded. An informatics workgroup within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards network conducted an analysis to identify the scope, governance, and funding of this infrastructure. After we identified the essential components of an informatics infrastructure, we surveyed informatics leaders at network institutions about the governance and sustainability of the different components. Results from 42 survey respondents showed significant variations in governance and sustainability; however, some trends also emerged. Core informatics components such as electronic data capture systems, electronic health records data repositories, and related tools had mixed models of funding including, fee-for-service, extramural grants, and institutional support. Several key components such as regulatory systems (e.g., electronic Institutional Review Board [IRB] systems, grants, and contracts), security systems, data warehouses, and clinical trials management systems were overwhelmingly supported as institutional infrastructure. The findings highlighted in this report are worth noting for academic health centers and funding agencies involved in planning current and future informatics infrastructure, which provides the foundation for a robust, data-driven clinical and translational research program.