GPGPU Virtualization Techniques a Comparative Survey

BACKGROUND Artificial intelligence (AI) is widely applied in the medical field, especially in ophthalmology. In the development of ophthalmic artificial intelligence, some problems worthy of attention have gradually emerged, among which the ophthalmic AI-related recognition issues are particularly prominent. That is to say, currently, there is a lack of research into people's familiarity with and their attitudes toward ophthalmic AI. OBJECTIVE This survey aims to assess medical workers’ and other professional technicians’ familiarity with AI, as well as their attitudes toward and concerns of ophthalmic AI. METHODS An electronic questionnaire was designed through the Questionnaire Star APP, an online survey software and questionnaire tool, and was sent to relevant professional workers through Wechat, China’s version of Facebook or WhatsApp. The participation was based on a voluntary and anonymous principle. The questionnaire mainly consisted of four parts, namely the participant’s background, the participant's basic understanding of AI, the participant's attitude toward AI, and the participant's concerns about AI. A total of 562 participants were counted, with 562 valid questionnaires returned. The results of the questionnaires are displayed in an Excel 2003 form. RESULTS A total of 562 professional workers completed the questionnaire, of whom 291 were medical workers and 271 were other professional technicians. About 37.9% of the participants understood AI, and 31.67% understood ophthalmic AI. The percentages of people who understood ophthalmic AI among medical workers and other professional technicians were about 42.61% and 15.6%, respectively. About 66.01% of the participants thought that ophthalmic AI would partly replace doctors, with about 59.07% still having a relatively high acceptance level of ophthalmic AI. Meanwhile, among those with ophthalmic AI application experiences (30.6%), respectively about 84.25% of medical professionals and 73.33% of other professional technicians held a full acceptance attitude toward ophthalmic AI. The participants expressed concerns that ophthalmic AI might bring about issues such as the unclear definition of medical responsibilities, the difficulty of ensuring service quality, and the medical ethics risks. And among the medical workers and other professional technicians who understood ophthalmic AI, 98.39%, and 95.24%, respectively, said that there was a need to increase the study of medical ethics issues in the ophthalmic AI field. CONCLUSIONS Analysis of the questionnaire results shows that the medical workers have a higher understanding level of ophthalmic AI than other professional technicians, making it necessary to popularize ophthalmic AI education among other professional technicians. Most of the participants did not have any experience in ophthalmic AI, but generally had a relatively high acceptance level of ophthalmic AI, believing that doctors would partly be replaced by it and that there was a need to strengthen research into medical ethics issues of the field.

Download Full-text

Power system PMU placement - a comparative survey report

IET-UK International Conference on Information and Communication Technology in Electrical Sciences (ICTES 2007) ◽

10.1049/ic:20070619 ◽

2007 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

P.S. SrinivasaReddy ◽

L. Ramesh ◽

S.P. Chowdhury

Keyword(s):

Power System ◽

Survey Report ◽

Pmu Placement ◽

Comparative Survey

Download Full-text

Comparative survey data on sociodemographic predictors of diversity tolerance among selected university students in Ghana and South Africa

Data in Brief ◽

10.1016/j.dib.2021.106771 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 34 ◽

pp. 106771

Author(s):

Elizabeth Biney ◽

Olusegun Sunday Ewemooje ◽

Acheampong Yaw Amoateng

Keyword(s):

South Africa ◽

University Students ◽

Survey Data ◽

Sociodemographic Predictors ◽

Comparative Survey

Download Full-text

Establishing the Middle Sea: The Late Bronze Age of Mediterranean Europe (1700–900 BC)

Journal of Archaeological Research ◽

10.1007/s10814-021-09165-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Francesco Iacono ◽

Elisabetta Borgna ◽

Maurizio Cattani ◽

Claudio Cavazzuti ◽

Helen Dawson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Organization ◽

Bronze Age ◽

Long Range ◽

Human Mobility ◽

Late Bronze Age ◽

Archaeological Record ◽

Mediterranean Europe ◽

Northern Shore ◽

Comparative Survey ◽

The Bronze Age

AbstractThe Late Bronze Age (1700–900 BC) represents an extremely dynamic period for Mediterranean Europe. Here, we provide a comparative survey of the archaeological record of over half a millennium within the entire northern littoral of the Mediterranean, from Greece to Iberia, incorporating archaeological, archaeometric, and bioarchaeological evidence. The picture that emerges, while certainly fragmented and not displaying a unique trajectory, reveals a number of broad trends in aspects as different as social organization, trade, transcultural phenomena, and human mobility. The contribution of such trends to the processes that caused the end of the Bronze Age is also examined. Taken together, they illustrate how networks of interaction, ranging from the short to the long range, became a defining aspect of the “Middle Sea” during this time, influencing the lives of the communities that inhabited its northern shore. They also highlight the importance of research that crosses modern boundaries for gaining a better understanding of broad comparable dynamics.

Download Full-text

Historicizing the comparative survey of freedom: tracing the social trajectory of an influential indicator

Science in Context ◽

10.1017/s0269889720000216 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 33 (2) ◽

pp. 121-144

Author(s):

Emily Zerndt

Keyword(s):

American Foreign Policy ◽

Policy Decision ◽

Political Scientist ◽

Social Scientists ◽

The Social ◽

Retrospective Account ◽

Comparative Survey ◽

Policy Decision Making ◽

The U.S ◽

Freedom House

ArgumentThe Comparative Survey of Freedom, first published by Freedom House in 1973, is now the most widely used indicator of democracy by both academics and the U.S. government alike. However, literature examining the Survey’s origins is virtually nonexistent. In this article, I use archival records to challenge Freedom House’s retrospective account of the indicator’s creation. Rather than the outcome of a scientific methodology by multiple social scientists, the Survey was produced by a single political scientist, Raymond Gastil, according to his own hunches and impressions. How, then, did this indicator rise to such prominence? I argue that the Survey’s notoriety can be attributed to its early promotion in both political science and American foreign policy decision-making, as well as the fact that it fit the dominant scientific and political paradigms of the time.

Download Full-text