We have been thinking about Wikipedia pageviews as an indicator of (partial) disintermediation in diagnosis; people look up pages on medical condition to make sense of the symptoms they feel.
A network science version of this would be to:
(basic, but by no means easy to implement) draw a network of health-related Wikipedia pages (page A in connected to page B if it contains a link to page B). This can be seen as a representation of the concept space as seen from "the crowd".
(advanced) draw a network from a comparable academic dataset. This can be seen as a representation of the concept space as seen from credentialed experts.
In facts, while I was trying to figure out what they could share with us, I haven’t been able to find any documentation of how they would store less-than-anonymised-and-aggregated data about traffic…
I see your point @melancon, but let me get this straight: are we still planning to give a demonstration of the techniques arsenal, or are we aiming at answering actually meaningful questions?
I am afraid if we embark in the second, not only will it take a bit more to figure out what to ask, but the MoN will fall back to the initial condition of requiring at least a couple of days to produce anything better than a shabby collection of conflicting-half-thought visualisations (Hans is not just good because of the questions)…
The value of visualization strongly depends on the motivation one has to explore the data. Dozens of different visualization can be built form the same dataset.
WHat I am suggesting is not to undertake a quest for question on the occasion of the workshop, but to have them beforehand so I can prepare a “show” that would demonstrate the arsenal, based on real and convincing motivations.
I also had a look at what could be done using the wikipedia pages, as suggested by Alberto. I am still unsure about the feasibility (putting our hands on usage statitics could be quite difficult).
So, I am still interested in hearing people about how the oecd data could be useful for OpenCare.
So we both agree wikipedia is shaky ground… I will try to contact somebody at the Wikimedia Foundation to ask them whether the data could even be collected in the form we might need, but not for the LOTE5 deadline.
I will try to think of something about the OECD exercise instead, to contribute to the “brainstorming”
Page view stats are easy. Wikipedia maintains hourly dumps of all page views stats (documentation).
The difficult part is disentangling the pages about care from the pages about everything else. This cannot be done directly (it is not a field of the dataset); it has to be done by association. There are two ways to do that:
by ontology. There is a Wikiproject Medicine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine which even maintains its own statistics page. It follows that there is somewhere a piece of code that knows how to tell pages which are part of this project from pages which are not ("Medical articles are determined to be those NS0 articles tagged within the scope of WP:MED according to a category dump at the time of report generation"). Somewhere, someone has that code and could give it to us.
by emergence, based (you guessed it) on the network of links connecting different entries to each other. Within Wikipedia, you can expect to see pages about medicine to cluster into a community of pages more closely connected to each other than to the rest of the encyclopedia. Something like this seems to be done by tools like WikiLoopr (try it: for example http://www.wikiloopr.com/diabetes)
There are at least three interesting questions concerning OpenCare that you could address by looking at Wikipedia data:
Which entries are people looking up (hint: not necessarily the ones you would think)? Is that indication of self-diagnosis going on? What can we learn about that (example: are some countries more inclined to do that than other countries?). This is a non-network question.
How does collective intelligence in Wikipedia relate pages about care to each other? How does this compare to a similar web of relationship, but derived from academic datasets? This question pertains to networks of documents (Wikipedia entries) connected by hyperlinks (somebody did it in 2007).
How does collective intelligence proceed in building that content? This question pertains to a network of Wikipedians connected by affiliation (having edited the same page).
There are many visualizations to look up for inspiration.
What I am not sure of is the following: since the traffic is only saved as aggregated data (as in “number of page visualisations”) rather than in detailed form (as in “the same anonymous user has visited the following pages in sequence”), how do we build a meaningful network being blinded to their co-occurrence?
…so we have, on one side the visualisation load, and on the other the content relatedness… the latter being a bit less an expression of crowd intelligence than search co-occurrences would be, since the entries in wikipedia (and the edits) tend to be subdued to references…
If you re-read my comment above, @markomanka, you will see that data on pageviews are non-network (item 1). Data on patterns of linking across entries (2) and collaboration on different entries (3) naturally induce networks.
…I am just unsure how would we interprete the possible analyses, being unable to access the hidden confounders acting on them…
…should we maybe think of a bootstrapping pipeline, testing several (realistic?) weightings/architectures of confounders, to get a distribution of trustworthiness of the models (and their interpretations)?
Just running one analysis on the data doesn’t seem to me any better than just formulating an informed prejudice… maybe different, but not better.
@markomanka, @melancon and anyone else interested: let’s move the debate on MoN to a different thread. This one has become long, messy and difficult to search.
I like the 3 days structure, day1 closed door, day2 MoN, day3 Ezio Manzini ws + our contributions.
I’m not sure about dedicating 2 days to MoN but, even if I watched the video, I’ve never experiences something similar. I definitely wouldn’t miss Manzini ws on designing community driven care services!
I can bring with pleasure (afternoon day3 if I understood well) the point of “welfare in the city” and the challenging that the public system is facing!
We have a fundamental tradeoff. On the one hand, we can reach the maximum amount of people by doing several things in parallel: data geeks might like MoN better, whereas designers will flock to Ezio etc. But on the other hand, we need to learn from each other and share tools, and we cannot do that if, say, Marco is talking about healthonomics in one room at the same time that Zoe is hacking devices in another room.
I recommend prioritising mutual learning over engagement. Doing things in sequence, which is normally inefficient, in this case is good (we will probably increase work in parallel as the project progresses). So, two possibilities:
The @Luciascopelliti ticket: day one closed doors, day 2 MoN reduced to one day, day 3 other contributions, cast as LOTE5 events to piggyback on the communication infrastructure. This is actually my preferred outcome provided that MoN can be pre-produced a lot. For example, this was made in one-day hackathon, but the main graph had been pro-produced; and that meant finding the data, downloading them, cleaning them, and writing the Python script that put it in network form. But I am but a mere network apprentice, whereas @melancon has wizardly powers and can do that stuff in his sleep , so this may actually be doable.
Posponing MoN to the second consortium meeting (Bordeaux in May?) to focus on workshop-y stuff and talks.
The third alternative, that of doing a two-day MoN but nothing else, I do not really like. I love networks, but I do not think non-geeks need some extra love at this stage. Do you agree, @Noemi?
@markomanka and @MassimoMercuri: whatever you guys do (Lego is excellent, BTW! Who does not like Lego?) will be pushed out as part of the LOTE5 event. It comes down to: we can negotiate with the LOTE5 team the time and facilities needed for each session.
@zoescope: do you want us to look into an alliance with the Brussels makers? This seems like an easy win: equipment is there and we have more makers coming into contact with the Belgian makers. Perhaps you know some already – and we do know @Thomas_Goorden.
All, great to see enthusiasm jumping through the roof. Like @Melancon, @zoescope and the rest I too am curious to dip my feet into as many and diverse talks and workshops. A lot of us in OpenCare don’t know each other’s work except in “keywords”, and the more we can learn the more useful for the different takes on care to make sense taken together, which is why we have a consortium in the first place.
I’d like to propose a small adjustment: it seems there’s agreement for Day 1 to be meeting-style. Given that Day2, the 25th is the launch day for Living on the Edge conference, we have to consider a broader audience making contact for the first time. It would be great to use it as OpenCare context setting and public launch: an overview on care fails rather than data. I suggest planning Manzini’s, Lucia’s, Marko’s and other talks+ maker workshops from the team here, and leave MoN for 26th, when it can run in parallel with other Lote sessions.
@markomanka the easiest to manage is if you let us know how much time you would need at a minimum, rather than the other way around. If you know that you are giving a talk on the day of OpenCare official public launch in front of a v mixed audience, what picture would you like to paint the most?
I could just present a simple introduction to the principles of medicine, contrasting them with the everyday experience of medical practices as they are commonly seen… This could serve the purpose of discussing failures, AND of highlighting our yet poor framing of what we do, at once.
The number of arguments touched may vary quite a bit, but let’s say that starting from being allowed 30 minutes of lecture on, I believe it could start piecing together for the audience. It would be nice to have some time immediately after the lecture buffered for questions, allowing also for relaxed interruptions during the lecture. I usually get the feeling that asking people to wait for other lectures to conclude before asking questions let’s their curiosity drain away…
I should be comfortable with people interacting with me in quite a few languages (English of course, Italian of course, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and I could even venture accepting questions in Dutch although quite uncomfortably =P…) but I am only able to reply fluently and timely in English and Italian …this should be communicated to those attending… or we should identify some volunteer (informal) interpreters
@markomanka so it would seem you will need around an hour, Q&A included. But it will be really your call. I suggest once you have decided on a title and a couple paragraphs to describe your session you upload it as a proposal to the program. Here are all the instructions and questions to help you refine it. Of course you’ll always be able to change it, but it gives people an introduction and a way to talk to you prior to Brussels because we’ll be circulating the link. You can also post or link to resource and readings so we come better prepared.
I could suggest a lecture about the weird ways from fundamental research to “innovation” from a researcher here in ATLAS/CERN from the University of Geneva? He is doing R&D in medical technologies, but the story (I believe) is more interesting for us than the subject of research itself…
@alberto we have special kits plug and play to fast prototype with Arduino, sensors and actuators that’s why it would not be necessary to ask for equipment. for sure It would be nice to involve them for networking on opencare!
<p style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:18.0pt;margin-left:
<p>0cm"><span>Hi everyone,</p>
</span>
<p><span>my name is Seble Woldeghiorghis and I work for the Department of Social Policies an Health for the Municipality of Milan, I’ve seen the draft of the kick off. Found it perfect. It will be a great opportunity to start this exciting journey.</span></p>
<p><span>I have been impressed by the Master of Networks video. I think it would be very interesting for our department ( Social Policies and Helath) not only for the OpenCare project but also for another project we are heading called “Welfare di tutti” (Welfare of all). The project aims to promote sustainable community welfare experiments that are able to activate responses more effective, efficient and fair and at the same time , to trigger participatory processes that ensure the involvement of the society and citizens, making it more effective , stable and sustainable innovation produced. It would be nice to present you the project and find together the way to improve the tools of participation we will develop and that will be useful also for OpenCare.</span></p>
<p><span>Ciao.</span></p>
<span>
</span>
</p>
I had not noticed this post among the long discussion about the organization of the kick-off.
Does Milano have any data we could use to investigate how the Welfare di tutti initiative is doing? Any conversations among participants, any traces of activities related to this initiative?
Would be great to use this as an ingredient for the MoN4 workshop. There is still time to include this to the workshop.
, so this may actually be doable.