Search results for: ant specialists

Authors: Kevin F. Hsu, Alvin Chua, Sarah X. Lin

Abstract:

As a multilingual society, Singaporean names for different parts of the city have changed over time. Residents included Indigenous Malays, dialect-speakers from China, European settler-colonists, and Tamil-speakers from South India. Each group would name locations in their own languages. Today, as ancestral tongues are increasingly supplanted by English, contemporary Singaporeans’ understanding of once-common place names is disappearing. After demolition or redevelopment, some urban places will only exist in archival records or in human memory. United Nations conferences on the standardization of geographic names have called attention to how place names relate to identity, well-being, and a sense of belonging. The Singapore Place-Naming Project responds to these imperatives by capturing past and present place names through digitizing historical maps, mining archival records, and applying selective crowd-sourcing to trace the evolution of place names throughout the city. The project ensures that both formal and vernacular geographical names remain accessible to historians, city planners, and the public. The project is compiling a gazetteer, a geospatial archive of placenames, with streets, buildings, landmarks, and other points of interest (POI) appearing in the historic maps and planning documents of Singapore, currently held by the National Archives of Singapore, the National Library Board, university departments, and the Urban Redevelopment Authority. To create a spatial layer of information, the project links each place name to either a geo-referenced point, line segment, or polygon, along with the original source material in which the name appears. This record is supplemented by crowd-sourced contributions from civil service officers and heritage specialists, drawing from their collective memory to (1) define geospatial boundaries of historic places that appear in past documents, but maybe unfamiliar to users today, and (2) identify and record vernacular place names not captured in formal planning documents. An intuitive interface allows participants to demarcate feature classes, vernacular phrasings, time periods, and other knowledge related to historical or forgotten spaces. Participants are stratified into age bands and ethnicity to improve representativeness. Future iterations could allow additional public contributions. Names reveal meanings that communities assign to each place. While existing historical maps of Singapore allow users to toggle between present-day and historical raster files, this project goes a step further by adding layers of social understanding and planning documents. Tracking place names illuminates linguistic, cultural, commercial, and demographic shifts in Singapore, in the context of transformations of the urban environment. The project also demonstrates how a moderated, selectively crowd-sourced effort can solicit useful geospatial data at scale, sourced from different generations, and at higher granularity than traditional surveys, while mitigating negative impacts of unmoderated crowd-sourcing. Stakeholder agencies believe the project will achieve several objectives, including Supporting heritage conservation and public education; Safeguarding intangible cultural heritage; Providing historical context for street, place or development-renaming requests; Enhancing place-making with deeper historical knowledge; Facilitating emergency and social services by tagging legal addresses to vernacular place names; Encouraging public engagement with heritage by eliciting multi-stakeholder input.

Keywords: collective memory, crowd-sourced, digital heritage, geospatial, geographical names, linguistic heritage, place-naming, Singapore, Southeast Asia

Procedia PDF Downloads 108

Authors: Murat Arıbaş, Uğur Özcan

Abstract:

Due to the increasing number of universities and academics, the fund of the universities for research activities and grants/supports given by government institutions have increased number and quality of academic research projects. Although every academic research project has a specific purpose and importance, limited resources (money, time, manpower etc.) require choosing the best ones from all (Amiri, 2010). It is a pretty hard process to compare and determine which project is better such that the projects serve different purposes. In addition, the evaluation process has become complicated since there are more than one evaluator and multiple criteria for the evaluation (Dodangeh, Mojahed and Yusuff, 2009). Mehrez and Sinuany-Stern (1983) determined project selection problem as a Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem. If a decision problem involves multiple criteria and objectives, it is called as a Multi Attribute Decision Making problem (Ömürbek & Kınay, 2013). There are many MCDM methods in the literature for the solution of such problems. These methods are AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process), ANP (Analytic Network Process), TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution), PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation), UTADIS (Utilities Additives Discriminantes), ELECTRE (Elimination et Choix Traduisant la Realite), MAUT (Multiattribute Utility Theory), GRA (Grey Relational Analysis) etc. Teach method has some advantages compared with others (Ömürbek, Blacksmith & Akalın, 2013). Hence, to decide which MCDM method will be used for solution of the problem, factors like the nature of the problem, types of choices, measurement scales, type of uncertainty, dependency among the attributes, expectations of decision maker, and quantity and quality of the data should be considered (Tavana & Hatami-Marbini, 2011). By this study, it is aimed to develop a systematic decision process for the grant support applications that are expected to be evaluated according to their scientific adequacy by multiple evaluators under certain criteria. In this context, project evaluation process applied by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) the leading institutions in our country, was investigated. Firstly in the study, criteria that will be used on the project evaluation were decided. The main criteria were selected among TÜBİTAK evaluation criteria. These criteria were originality of project, methodology, project management/team and research opportunities and extensive impact of project. Moreover, for each main criteria, 2-4 sub criteria were defined, hence it was decided to evaluate projects over 13 sub-criterion in total. Due to superiority of determination criteria weights AHP method and provided opportunity ranking great number of alternatives TOPSIS method, they are used together. AHP method, developed by Saaty (1977), is based on selection by pairwise comparisons. Because of its simple structure and being easy to understand, AHP is the very popular method in the literature for determining criteria weights in MCDM problems. Besides, the TOPSIS method developed by Hwang and Yoon (1981) as a MCDM technique is an alternative to ELECTRE method and it is used in many areas. In the method, distance from each decision point to ideal and to negative ideal solution point was calculated by using Euclidian Distance Approach. In the study, main criteria and sub-criteria were compared on their own merits by using questionnaires that were developed based on an importance scale by four relative groups of people (i.e. TUBITAK specialists, TUBITAK managers, academics and individuals from business world ) After these pairwise comparisons, weight of the each main criteria and sub-criteria were calculated by using AHP method. Then these calculated criteria’ weights used as an input in TOPSİS method, a sample consisting 200 projects were ranked on their own merits. This new system supported to opportunity to get views of the people that take part of project process including preparation, evaluation and implementation on the evaluation of academic research projects. Moreover, instead of using four main criteria in equal weight to evaluate projects, by using weighted 13 sub-criteria and decision point’s distance from the ideal solution, systematic decision making process was developed. By this evaluation process, new approach was created to determine importance of academic research projects.

Keywords: Academic projects, Ahp method, Research projects evaluation, Topsis method.

Procedia PDF Downloads 573