A data management plan or DMP is a formal document that outlines how data are to be handled both during a research project, and after the project is completed. The goal of a data management plan is to consider the many aspects of data management, metadata generation, data preservation, and analysis before the project begins; this may lead to data being well-managed in the present, and prepared for preservation in the future. DMPs were originally used in 1966 to manage aeronautical and engineering projects' data collection and analysis, and expanded across engineering and scientific disciplines in the 1970s and 1980s. Up until the early 2000s, DMPs were used "for projects of great technical complexity, and for limited mid-study data collection and processing purposes". In the 2000s and later, E-research and economic policies drove the development and uptake of DMPs. == Importance == Preparing a data management plan before data are collected is claimed to ensure that data are in the correct format, organized well, and better annotated. This could arguably save time in the long term because there is no need to re-organize, re-format, or try to remember details about data. It is also claimed to increase research efficiency since both the data collector and other researchers might be able to understand and use well-annotated data in the future. One component of a data management plan is data archiving and preservation. By deciding on an archive ahead of time, the data collector can format data during collection to make its future submission to a database easier. If data are preserved, they are more relevant since they can be re-used by other researchers. It also allows the data collector to direct requests for data to the database, rather than address requests individually. A frequent argument in favor of preservation is that data that are preserved have the potential to lead to new, unanticipated discoveries, and they prevent duplication of scientific studies that have already been conducted. Data archiving also provides insurance against loss by the data collector. In the 2010s, funding agencies increasingly required data management plans as part of the proposal and evaluation process, despite little or no evidence of their efficacy. == Major components == "There is no general and definitive list of topics that should be covered in a DMP for a research project", and researchers are often left to their own devices as to how to fill out a DMP. === Information about data and data format === A description of data to be produced by the project. This might include (but is not limited to) data that are: Experimental Observational Raw or derived Physical collections Models Simulations Curriculum materials Software Images How will the data be acquired? When and where will they be acquired? After collection, how will the data be processed? Include information about Software used Algorithms Scientific workflows File formats that will be used, justify those formats, and describe the naming conventions used. Quality assurance & quality control measures that will be taken during sample collection, analysis, and processing. If existing data are used, what are their origins? How will the data collected be combined with existing data? What is the relationship between the data collected and existing data? How will the data be managed in the short-term? Consider the following: Version control for files Backing up data and data products Security & protection of data and data products Who will be responsible for management === Metadata content and format === Metadata are the contextual details, including any information important for using data. This may include descriptions of temporal and spatial details, instruments, parameters, units, files, etc. Metadata is commonly referred to as "data about data". Issues to be considered include: How detailed has the metadata to be in order to make the data meaningful? How will the metadata be created and/or captured? Examples include lab notebooks, GPS hand-held units, Auto-saved files on instruments, etc. What format will be used for the metadata? What are the metadata standards commonly used in the respective scientific discipline? There should be justification for the format chosen. === Policies for access, sharing, and re-use === Describe any obligations that exist for sharing data collected. These may include obligations from funding agencies, institutions, other professional organizations, and legal requirements. Include information about how data will be shared, including when the data will be accessible, how long the data will be available, how access can be gained, and any rights that the data collector reserves for using data. Address any ethical or privacy issues with data sharing Address intellectual property & copyright issues. Who owns the copyright? What are the institutional, publisher, and/or funding agency policies associated with intellectual property? Are there embargoes for political, commercial, or patent reasons? Describe the intended future uses/users for the data Indicate how the data should be cited by others. How will the issue of persistent citation be addressed? For example, if the data will be deposited in a public archive, will the dataset have a persistent identifier (e.g., ARK, DOI, Handle, PURL, URN) assigned to it? === Long-term storage and data management === Researchers should identify an appropriate archive for the long-term preservation of their data. By identifying the archive early in the project, the data can be formatted, transformed, and documented appropriately to meet the requirements of the archive. Researchers should consult colleagues and professional societies in their discipline to determine the most appropriate database, and include a backup archive in their data management plan in case their first choice goes out of existence. Early in the project, the primary researcher should identify what data will be preserved in an archive. Usually, preserving the data in its most raw form is desirable, although data derivatives and products can also be preserved. An individual should be identified as the primary contact person for archived data, and ensure contact information is always kept up-to-date in case there are requests for data or information about data. === Budget === Data management and preservation costs may be considerable, depending on the nature of the project. By anticipating costs ahead of time, researchers ensure that the data will be properly managed and archived. Potential expenses that should be considered are Human resources and staff as they handle data preparation, management, documentation, and preservation Hardware and/or software needed for data management, backing up, security, documentation, and preservation Costs associated with submitting the data to an archive The data management plan should include how these costs will be paid. == NSF Data Management Plan == All grant proposals submitted to National Science Foundation (NSF) must include a Data Management Plan that is no more than two pages. This is a supplement (not part of the 15-page proposal) and should describe how the proposal will conform to the Award and Administration Guide policy (see below). It may include the following: The types of data The standards to be used for data and metadata format and content Policies for access and sharing Policies and provisions for re-use Plans for archiving data Policy summarized from the NSF Award and Administration Guide, Section 4 (Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results): Promptly publish with appropriate authorship Share data, samples, physical collections, and supporting materials with others, within a reasonable time frame Share software and inventions Investigators can keep their legal rights over their intellectual property, but they still have to make their results, data, and collections available to others Policies will be implemented via Proposal review Award negotiations and conditions Support/incentives == ESRC Data Management Plan == Since 1995, the UK's Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) have had a research data policy in place. The current ESRC Research Data Policy states that research data created as a result of ESRC-funded research should be openly available to the scientific community to the maximum extent possible, through long-term preservation and high-quality data management. ESRC requires a data management plan for all research award applications where new data are being created. Such plans are designed to promote a structured approach to data management throughout the data lifecycle, resulting in better quality data that is ready to archive for sharing and re-use. The UK Data Service, the ESRC's flagship data service, provides practical guidance on research data management planning suitable for social science researchers in the UK and around the world. ESRC has a longstanding arrangement with the UK Data A
Zero-knowledge service
In cloud computing, the term zero-knowledge (or occasionally no-knowledge or zero-access) is a commonly used term for online services that store, transfer or manipulate data with a high level of confidentiality, where the data is only accessible to the data's owner (the client), and not to the service provider. However, unlike "end-to-end encryption", the term "zero-knowledge" does not imply any specific threat model or security notion, and its use is commonly frowned-upon by the security community. The term "zero-knowledge" was popularized by backup service SpiderOak, which later switched to using the term "no knowledge", acknowledging that the previous terminology was not technically accurate. == Disadvantages == Most cloud storage services keep a copy of the client's password on their servers, allowing clients who have lost their passwords to retrieve and decrypt their data using alternative means of authentication; but since zero-knowledge services do not store copies of clients' passwords, if a client loses their password then their data cannot be decrypted, making it practically unrecoverable. Most of the most used cloud storage services, such as Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive or iCloud, are also able to furnish access requests from law enforcement agencies for similar reasons; zero-knowledge services, however, are unable to do so, since their systems are designed to make clients' data inaccessible without the client's explicit cooperation.
Seq2seq
Seq2seq is a family of machine learning approaches used for natural language processing. Originally developed by Lê Viết Quốc, a Vietnamese computer scientist and a machine learning pioneer at Google Brain, this framework has become foundational in many modern AI systems. Applications include language translation, image captioning, conversational models, speech recognition, and text summarization. Seq2seq uses sequence transformation: it turns one sequence into another sequence. == History == One naturally wonders if the problem of translation could conceivably be treated as a problem in cryptography. When I look at an article in Russian, I say: 'This is really written in English, but it has been coded in some strange symbols. I will now proceed to decode. seq2seq is an approach to machine translation (or more generally, sequence transduction) with roots in information theory, where communication is understood as an encode-transmit-decode process, and machine translation can be studied as a special case of communication. This viewpoint was elaborated, for example, in the noisy channel model of machine translation. In practice, seq2seq maps an input sequence into a real-numerical vector by using a neural network (the encoder), and then maps it back to an output sequence using another neural network (the decoder). The idea of encoder-decoder sequence transduction had been developed in the early 2010s. The papers most commonly cited as the originators that produced seq2seq are two papers from 2014. In the seq2seq as proposed by them, both the encoder and the decoder were LSTMs. This had the "bottleneck" problem, since the encoding vector has a fixed size, so for long input sequences, information would tend to be lost, as they are difficult to fit into the fixed-length encoding vector. The attention mechanism, proposed in 2014, resolved the bottleneck problem. They called their model RNNsearch, as it "emulates searching through a source sentence during decoding a translation". A problem with seq2seq models at this point was that recurrent neural networks are difficult to parallelize. The 2017 publication of Transformers resolved the problem by replacing the encoding RNN with self-attention Transformer blocks ("encoder blocks"), and the decoding RNN with cross-attention causally-masked Transformer blocks ("decoder blocks"). === Priority dispute === One of the papers cited as the originator for seq2seq is (Sutskever et al 2014), published at Google Brain while they were on Google's machine translation project. The research allowed Google to overhaul Google Translate into Google Neural Machine Translation in 2016. Tomáš Mikolov claims to have developed the idea (before joining Google Brain) of using a "neural language model on pairs of sentences... and then [generating] translation after seeing the first sentence"—which he equates with seq2seq machine translation, and to have mentioned the idea to Ilya Sutskever and Quoc Le (while at Google Brain), who failed to acknowledge him in their paper. Mikolov had worked on RNNLM (using RNN for language modelling) for his PhD thesis, and is more notable for developing word2vec. == Architecture == The main reference for this section is. === Encoder === The encoder is responsible for processing the input sequence and capturing its essential information, which is stored as the hidden state of the network and, in a model with attention mechanism, a context vector. The context vector is the weighted sum of the input hidden states and is generated for every time instance in the output sequences. === Decoder === The decoder takes the context vector and hidden states from the encoder and generates the final output sequence. The decoder operates in an autoregressive manner, producing one element of the output sequence at a time. At each step, it considers the previously generated elements, the context vector, and the input sequence information to make predictions for the next element in the output sequence. Specifically, in a model with attention mechanism, the context vector and the hidden state are concatenated together to form an attention hidden vector, which is used as an input for the decoder. The seq2seq method developed in the early 2010s uses two neural networks: an encoder network converts an input sentence into numerical vectors, and a decoder network converts those vectors to sentences in the target language. The Attention mechanism was grafted onto this structure in 2014 and is shown below. Later it was refined into the encoder-decoder Transformer architecture of 2017. === Training vs prediction === There is a subtle difference between training and prediction. During training time, both the input and the output sequences are known. During prediction time, only the input sequence is known, and the output sequence must be decoded by the network itself. Specifically, consider an input sequence x 1 : n {\displaystyle x_{1:n}} and output sequence y 1 : m {\displaystyle y_{1:m}} . The encoder would process the input x 1 : n {\displaystyle x_{1:n}} step by step. After that, the decoder would take the output from the encoder, as well as the
Racter
Racter is an artificial intelligence program that generates English language prose at random. It was published by Mindscape for IBM PC compatibles in 1984, then for the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. An expanded version of the software, not the one released through Mindscape, was used to generate the text for the published book The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed. == History == Racter, short for raconteur, was written by William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter. Racter's initial creation was the short story Soft Ions, which appeared in the October 1981 issue of Omni (magazine). The publication's editors bought the story in January 1980, before it had even been written. In exchange for the rights, the editors offered financial support to Chamberlain and Etter so the two could refine Racter. In 1983, Racter produced a book called The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed (ISBN 0-446-38051-2). The program originally was written for an OSI which only supported file names at most six characters long, causing the name to be shorted to Racter and it was later adapted to run on a CP/M machine where it was written in "compiled ASIC on a Z80 microcomputer with 64K of RAM." This version, the program that allegedly wrote the book, was not released to the general public. The sophistication claimed for the program was likely exaggerated, as could be seen by investigation of the template system of text generation. In 1984, Mindscape released an interactive version of Racter, developed by Inrac Corporation, for IBM PC compatibles, and it was ported to the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. The published Racter was similar to a chatterbot. The BASIC program that was released by Mindscape was far less sophisticated than anything that could have written the fairly sophisticated prose of The Policeman's Beard. The commercial version of Racter could be likened to a computerized version of Mad Libs, the game in which you fill in the blanks in advance and then plug them into a text template to produce a surrealistic tale. The commercial program attempted to parse text inputs, identifying significant nouns and verbs, which it would then regurgitate to create "conversations", plugging the input from the user into phrase templates which it then combined, along with modules that conjugated English verbs. By contrast, the text in The Policeman's Beard, apart from being edited from a large amount of output, would have been the product of Chamberlain's own specialized templates and modules, which were not included in the commercial release of the program. == Reception == The Boston Phoenix called the story Soft Ions "schematic nonsense. But the scheme is obvious enough and the nonsense accessible enough to an attentive reader that one can almost believe Chamberlain when he predicts that before long Racter will be ready to write for the pulp-reading public." PC Magazine described some of Policeman's Beard's scenes as "surprising for their frankness" and "reflective". It concluded that the book was "whimsical and wise and sometimes fun". Computer Gaming World described Racter as "a diversion into another dimension that might best be seen before paying the price of a ticket. (Try before you buy!)" A 1985 review of the program in The New York Times notes that, "As computers move ever closer to artificial intelligence, Racter is on the edge of artificial insanity." It also states that Racter's "always-changing sentences are grammatically correct, often funny and, for a computer, sometimes profound." The article includes examples showing interaction with Racter, most often Racter asking the user questions. == Reviews == Jeux & Stratégie #47
NetMiner
NetMiner is an all-in-one software platform for analyzing and visualizing complex network data, based on Social Network Analysis (SNA). Originally released in 2001, it supports research and education in a wide range of domains through interactive and visual data exploration. This tool allows researchers to explore their network data visually and interactively, and helps them to detect underlying patterns and structures of the network. It has also been recognized for its comprehensive features and user-friendly interface in comparative reviews of SNA software packages. == Features == === Integrated Data Environment === NetMiner supports unified management of diverse data types—including network (nodes and links), tabular, and unstructured text data—within a single platform. This enables users to perform the entire analysis workflow seamlessly without switching between tools. NetMiner also supports a wide range of analytical methods, allowing users to derive new insights by combining multiple approaches. Analytical results can be saved and reused across workflows(Add to Dataset) Graph and Network Analysis: Includes Centrality, Community Detection, Blockmodeling, and Similarity Measures. Machine learning: Provides algorithms for regression, classification, clustering, ensemble modeling and XAI(Explainable AI) Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): Supports models such as GraphSAGE, GCN, and GAT to learn from both node attributes and graph structure. Natural language processing (NLP): Uses pretrained deep learning models to analyze unstructured text, including named entity recognition and keyword extraction. Text mining and Text network analysis: Supports construction of word co-occurrence networks and topic modeling using LDA, BERTopic, enabling identification of thematic patterns and semantic structures in text data. Data Visualization: Offers advanced network visualization features, supporting multiple layout algorithms. Analytical outcomes such as centrality or community detection can be directly reflected in the network map via node size, color, and position, enhancing intuitive understanding. === AI Assistant === NetMiner integrates with external large language models such as OpenAI GPT and Google Gemini to interpret complex analysis results in natural language, summarize key findings, and suggest next steps for exploration. === Workflow and Usability === Designed to follow the structure of real-world data analysis workflows, NetMiner adopts a hierarchical data organization (Project → Workspace → Dataset → Data Item). Its web-based user interface improves clarity and reduces complexity. NetMiner 5 supports Windows 10 or higher and macOS 11 or later with M1 chip. Both academic and commercial licenses are available. == Extension == NetMiner Extension is small program to extend the functionality of NetMiner. In other words, it enables you to customize NetMiner according to your needs. By adding ‘NetMiner Extension’, you can expand your research. === Web Data Collection === NetMiner allows users to collect data from services such as YouTube, OpenAlex, Springer, and KCI via Open APIs. Collected data is automatically preprocessed and transformed to fit NetMiner’s internal structure, requiring no additional coding or external tools. SNS Data Collector: It collects social media data from YouTube, which has a large number of social media users worldwide. Biblio Data Collector: It collects the bibliographic data from Springer, OpenAlex, and KCI essential for research trend analysis. == File formats == === NetMiner data file format === .NMF === Importable/exportable formats === Plain text data: .TXT, .CSV Microsoft Excel data: .XLS, .XLSX Unstructured text data: .TXT, .CSV, .XLS(X) ※ NetMiner 4 only NetMiner 2 data: .NTF UCINet data: .DL, .DAT Pajek data: .NET, .VEC, .CLU, .PER StOCNET data file: .DAT Graph Modelling Language data: .GML(importing only) Related software UCINET Pajek Gephi StoCNET == Data structure == === Hierarchy of NetMiner data structure === NetMiner 5 supports not only graph data composed of nodes and links, but also tabular and unstructured data without fixed schema or identifiers. This enables users to easily import a wide variety of raw and unstructured data suitable for machine learning applications. Within a single workspace, users can manage node sets, link sets, and structured/unstructured data simultaneously. Multiple graph layers under a node set can be organized in a tree structure, allowing for intuitive understanding of the data currently being analyzed. == Release history == The first version of NetMiner was released on Dec 21, 2001. There have been five major updates from 2001. === NetMiner 5 === Released on June 9, 2025. NetMiner 5 retains the core features and no-code concept of NetMiner 4, but has evolved by integrating cutting-edge AI technologies. AI Assistant, Personal Analytics Tutor Support for Graph, Structured, and Unstructured Data Graph Analytics / Social Network Analysis Machine Learning(M/L) & XAI Graph Machine Learning(GML): Graph Neural Network Text Mining: Natural Language Processing(NLP), Text Network, Topic Modeling Data Visualization === NetMiner 4 (2011) === Latest version is 4.5.1. Introduced Python scripting, encrypted NMF format, semantic analysis tools (word cloud, topic modeling), and Extension - Data Collector. === NetMiner 3 (2007) === Enhanced scalability, integrated analysis-visualization modules, and DB import from Oracle, MS SQL. === NetMiner 2 (2003) === Improved statistical and network measures, visualization algorithms, and external data import modules.
Period-tracking app
Period-tracking apps are mobile applications used to track the menstrual cycle. They may be used to predict menstruation, to plan fertility, and to track health. Examples include Clue, Glow, and Flo. == Function == Users enter their dates of menstruation, and frequently other experiences such as vaginal discharge and spotting; premenstrual syndrome; changes in mood; menstrual cramps and other pain; and other symptoms such as appetite changes, bloating, and acne. The apps predict the date of users' next period, and often also their ovulation and fertile window. Some apps have additional features such as contraceptive reminders, educational content, tracking modes for use during pregnancy, or the ability to share one's menstrual cycle data with a partner. == Privacy == Period-tracking apps collect personal health data, potentially raising concerns about privacy. Researchers have warned that data may be transferred to third parties and used for consumer profiling and targeted advertising, used for employment and health insurance discrimination, or used to prosecute users for seeking abortions. After the 2022 decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the bans and restrictions on abortion in many US states that followed, many American women uninstalled the apps amidst fear that the data could be accessed by law enforcement and used to prosecute users. WIRED published a ranking of several period-tracking apps by data privacy.
Legal information retrieval
Legal information retrieval is the science of information retrieval applied to legal text, including legislation, case law, and scholarly works. Accurate legal information retrieval is important to provide access to the law to laymen and legal professionals. Its importance has increased because of the vast and quickly increasing amount of legal documents available through electronic means. Legal information retrieval is a part of the growing field of legal informatics. In a legal setting, it is frequently important to retrieve all information related to a specific query. However, commonly used boolean search methods (exact matches of specified terms) on full text legal documents have been shown to have an average recall rate as low as 20 percent, meaning that only 1 in 5 relevant documents are actually retrieved. In that case, researchers believed that they had retrieved over 75% of relevant documents. This may result in failing to retrieve important or precedential cases. In some jurisdictions this may be especially problematic, as legal professionals are ethically obligated to be reasonably informed as to relevant legal documents. Legal Information Retrieval attempts to increase the effectiveness of legal searches by increasing the number of relevant documents (providing a high recall rate) and reducing the number of irrelevant documents (a high precision rate). This is a difficult task, as the legal field is prone to jargon, polysemes (words that have different meanings when used in a legal context), and constant change. Techniques used to achieve these goals generally fall into three categories: boolean retrieval, manual classification of legal text, and natural language processing of legal text. == Problems == Application of standard information retrieval techniques to legal text can be more difficult than application in other subjects. One key problem is that the law rarely has an inherent taxonomy. Instead, the law is generally filled with open-ended terms, which may change over time. This can be especially true in common law countries, where each decided case can subtly change the meaning of a certain word or phrase. Legal information systems must also be programmed to deal with law-specific words and phrases. Though this is less problematic in the context of words which exist solely in law, legal texts also frequently use polysemes, words may have different meanings when used in a legal or common-speech manner, potentially both within the same document. The legal meanings may be dependent on the area of law in which it is applied. For example, in the context of European Union legislation, the term "worker" has four different meanings: Any worker as defined in Article 3(a) of Directive 89/391/EEC who habitually uses display screen equipment as a significant part of his normal work. Any person employed by an employer, including trainees and apprentices but excluding domestic servants; Any person carrying out an occupation on board a vessel, including trainees and apprentices, but excluding port pilots and shore personnel carrying out work on board a vessel at the quayside; Any person who, in the Member State concerned, is protected as an employee under national employment law and in accordance with national practice; It also has the common meaning: A person who works at a specific occupation. Though the terms may be similar, correct information retrieval must differentiate between the intended use and irrelevant uses in order to return the correct results. Even if a system overcomes the language problems inherent in law, it must still determine the relevancy of each result. In the context of judicial decisions, this requires determining the precedential value of the case. Case decisions from senior or superior courts may be more relevant than those from lower courts, even where the lower court's decision contains more discussion of the relevant facts. The opposite may be true, however, if the senior court has only a minor discussion of the topic (for example, if it is a secondary consideration in the case). An information retrieval system must also be aware of the authority of the jurisdiction. A case from a binding authority is most likely of more value than one from a non-binding authority. Additionally, the intentions of the user may determine which cases they find valuable. For instance, where a legal professional is attempting to argue a specific interpretation of law, he might find a minor court's decision which supports his position more valuable than a senior courts position which does not. He may also value similar positions from different areas of law, different jurisdictions, or dissenting opinions. Overcoming these problems can be made more difficult because of the large number of cases available. The number of legal cases available via electronic means is constantly increasing (in 2003, US appellate courts handed down approximately 500 new cases per day), meaning that an accurate legal information retrieval system must incorporate methods of both sorting past data and managing new data. == Techniques == === Boolean searches === Boolean searches, where a user may specify terms such as use of specific words or judgments by a specific court, are the most common type of search available via legal information retrieval systems. They are widely implemented but overcome few of the problems discussed above. The recall and precision rates of these searches vary depending on the implementation and searches analyzed. One study found a basic boolean search's recall rate to be roughly 20%, and its precision rate to be roughly 79%. Another study implemented a generic search (that is, not designed for legal uses) and found a recall rate of 56% and a precision rate of 72% among legal professionals. Both numbers increased when searches were run by non-legal professionals, to a 68% recall rate and 77% precision rate. This is likely explained because of the use of complex legal terms by the legal professionals. === Manual classification === In order to overcome the limits of basic boolean searches, information systems have attempted to classify case laws and statutes into more computer friendly structures. Usually, this results in the creation of an ontology to classify the texts, based on the way a legal professional might think about them. These attempt to link texts on the basis of their type, their value, and/or their topic areas. Most major legal search providers now implement some sort of classification search, such as Westlaw's “Natural Language” or LexisNexis' Headnote searches. Additionally, both of these services allow browsing of their classifications, via Westlaw's West Key Numbers or Lexis' Headnotes. Though these two search algorithms are proprietary and secret, it is known that they employ manual classification of text (though this may be computer-assisted). These systems can help overcome the majority of problems inherent in legal information retrieval systems, in that manual classification has the greatest chances of identifying landmark cases and understanding the issues that arise in the text. In one study, ontological searching resulted in a precision rate of 82% and a recall rate of 97% among legal professionals. The legal texts included, however, were carefully controlled to just a few areas of law in a specific jurisdiction. The major drawback to this approach is the requirement of using highly skilled legal professionals and large amounts of time to classify texts. As the amount of text available continues to increase, some have stated their belief that manual classification is unsustainable. === Natural language processing === In order to reduce the reliance on legal professionals and the amount of time needed, efforts have been made to create a system to automatically classify legal text and queries. Adequate translation of both would allow accurate information retrieval without the high cost of human classification. These automatic systems generally employ Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques that are adapted to the legal domain, and also require the creation of a legal ontology. Though multiple systems have been postulated, few have reported results. One system, “SMILE,” which attempted to automatically extract classifications from case texts, resulted in an f-measure (which is a calculation of both recall rate and precision) of under 0.3 (compared to perfect f-measure of 1.0). This is probably much lower than an acceptable rate for general usage. Despite the limited results, many theorists predict that the evolution of such systems will eventually replace manual classification systems. === Citation-Based ranking === In the mid-90s the Room 5 case law retrieval project used citation mining for summaries and ranked its search results based on citation type and count. This slightly pre-dated the PageRank algorithm at Stanford which was also a citation-based ranking. Ranking of results was based