Mobile devices are becoming increasingly sophisticated and the latest generation of smart cell phones now incorporates many diverse and powerful sensors. These sensors include GPS sensors, vision sensors (i.e., cameras), audio sensors (i.e., microphones), light sensors, temperature sensors, direction sensors (i.e., magnetic compasses), and acceleration sensors (i.e., accelerometers). The availability of these sensors in mass-marketed communication devices creates exciting new opportunities for data mining and data mining applications. In this paper we describe and evaluate a system that uses phone-based accelerometers to perform activity recognition, a task which involves identifying the physical activity a user is performing. To implement our system we collected labeled accelerometer data from twenty-nine users as they performed daily activities such as walking, jogging, climbing stairs, sitting, and standing, and then aggregated this time series data into examples that summarize the user activity over 10-second intervals. We then used the resulting training data to induce a predictive model for activity recognition. This work is significant because the activity recognition model permits us to gain useful knowledge about the habits of millions of users passively-just by having them carry cell phones in their pockets. Our work has a wide range of applications, including automatic customization of the mobile device's behavior based upon a user's activity (e.g., sending calls directly to voicemail if a user is jogging) and generating a daily/weekly activity profile to determine if a user (perhaps an obese child) is performing a healthy amount of exercise.

The rhetoric of "excellence" is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organizations, from art history to zoology. But does "excellence" actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of "excellence" do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate "excellence" as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hyper-competition that arises from the performance of "excellence" is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that "excellence" is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship. This article is published as part of a collection on the future of research assessment.

Abstract-Mobile devices are becoming increasingly sophisticated and now incorporate many diverse and powerful sensors. The latest generation of smart phones is especially laden with sensors, including GPS sensors, vision sensors (cameras), audio sensors (microphones), light sensors, temperature sensors, direction sensors (compasses), and acceleration sensors. In this paper we describe and evaluate a system that uses phone-based acceleration sensors, called accelerometers, to identify and authenticate cell phone users. This form of behavioral biometric identification is possible because a person's movements form a unique signature and this is reflected in the accelerometer data that they generate. To implement our system we collected accelerometer data from thirty-six users as they performed normal daily activities such as walking, jogging, and climbing stairs, aggregated this time series data into examples, and then applied standard classification algorithms to the resulting data to generate predictive models. These models either predict the identity of the individual from the set of thirty-six users, a task we call user identification, or predict whether (or not) the user is a specific user, a task we call user authentication. This work is notable because it enables identification and authentication to occur unobtrusively, without the users taking any extra actions-all they need to do is carry their cell phones. There are many uses for this work. For example, in environments where sharing may take place, our work can be used to automatically customize a mobile device to a user. It can also be used to provide device security by enabling usage for only specific users and can provide an extra level of identity verification.

The movement for open access publishing (OA) is often said to have its roots in the scientific disciplines, having been popularized by scientific publishers and formalized through a range of top-down policy interventions. But there is an oftenneglected prehistory of OA that can be found in the early DIY publishers of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Managed entirely by working academics, these journals published research in the humanities and social sciences and stand out for their unique set of motivations and practices. This article explores this separate lineage in the history of the OA movement through a critical-theoretical analysis of the motivations and practices of the early scholar-led publishers. Alongside showing the involvement of the humanities and social sciences in the formation of OA, the analysis reveals the importance that these journals placed on experimental practices, critique of commercial publishing, and the desire to reach new audiences.Understood in today's context, this research is significant for adding complexity to the history of OA, which policymakers, advocates, and publishing scholars should keep in mind as OA goes mainstream.

No abstract