Microsoft AI (W4 Part 3)

Article:
Summary – What are the main points?
The article is generally about machine learning, which is the concept of “getting a computer to act without being explicitly programmed.” (Machine Learning), in the case focusing on Microsofts Azure platform. The argument is based on how Microsofts cloud service is capable of “holding the vast amount of data needed to train machine learning models” and how this would be beneficial to companies wanting to establish their own machine-learning platform. It generally goes over all of the reasons that Microsoft would be a beneficial machine-learning platform to use.
Referenced article: http://www.zdnet.com/article/should-microsoft-be-your-ai-and-machine-learning-platform/
Heath, N. (2016, December 1) Should Microsoft be your AI and machine learning platform? ZDNet. Retrieved from http://www.ZDNet.com

Where was the article published?
Znet.com, a business technology news website.

How credible is it?
As with Analytics 3.0, the article is not peer reviewed and is largely written by one person using cited sources and opinions.
The article title creates the impression that the article would be a discussion on why Microsoft would be a beneficial platform to use, but also doesn’t really address the benefits of other cloud-services. It does briefly mention Google cloud services while discussing availability of the services, and that “the cloud-based machine-learning marketplace is increasingly crowded“, but doesn’t really discuss any of the other cloud-services in comparison to Azure to demonstrate how it would be a benefit.

What other articles has the author written? Do they lend credibility?
The author is a Senior Reporter who writes about technology, and from his user page on the ZDNet site you can find a listing of articles he has written. Most of these are news reports, not research papers, and beyond being about IT related subjects they don’t lend much credibility due to news reports being a less reliable source of information in general.

How much other work has been written about the subject? And how does this affect the credibility?
I found a number of articles which wrote about Machine learning itself (Genetic Algorithms, MCMC, Oil Spill Detection, Pattern Recognition, Python, Text Catagorisation), and although many articles in general won’t be discussing platforms for machine learning the amount of articles still affects credibility in that it demonstrates the articles accuracy on machine learning itself – If the article discussed the benefits of Microsoft Azure for machine learning but got the fundamental details of machine learning incorrect, the article would come across as less credible. There being established knowledge in the area shows their argument is based on facts about machine learning.

Analytics (W4 Part 2)

Article:
Summary – What are the main points?
It’s generally a look back and current analysis of data analysis itself – It refers to two previous data standards “before big data and after big data“, and the current standard of Analytics 3.0, “a new resolve to apply powerful data-gathering and analysis methods not just to a company’s operations but also to its offerings – to embed data smartness into the products and services customers buy“. It mostly explains how a newer form of data analysis has emerged, which is called 3.0 by the article, or “the era of data enriched offerings“, which is basically giving data enrichment to clients and not withholding it in the company itself, and then going on to explain how to capitalise on doing this.
Referenced article: https://hbr.org/2013/12/analytics-30
Davenport, T. H. (2013, December). Analytics 3.0 Harvard Business Review

Where was the article published?
Harvard Business Review, hbr.org, a management magazine published by Harvard Business Publishing (Link).

How credible is it?
The article is written by one person, and to a magazine rather than a research journal and lacks peer reviewing, which damages the credibility compared to the article discussed in part 1, Beyond the Data Deluge
Using google scholar, it shows that over 150 articles have cited to article as a source (Link) which doesn’t really prove or disprove credibility.

What other articles has the author written? Do they lend credibility?
Thomas H. Davenport has written articles/books on business computing (Link), business data management (Link), and information technology (Link), which all relate to data, analysis and IT. This adds credibility as it shows he has established knowledge and publish work in relation to the Analysis 3.0 article, especially as he’s the only author of the article so it helps that he does have familiarity with the subjects since there wasn’t someone else to consult during the writing of it.

How much other work has been written about the subject? And how does this affect the credibility?
Most articles I found which reference the Analytics 3.0 article are focused on the 2.0 section, big data rather than the enriched data/3.0 segment. I didn’t come across any which did discuss a similar subject to the 3.0 segment, but haven’t had much time to look.
If there are only a few articles written on a subject, as it seems with this, then that would reduce the credibility of the research. Only having one source or authority on a subject means a reduction of evidence that the source work is accurate, and also means if the work is proven to be inaccurate then all other materials which referenced that source could be affected or withdrawn, depending on the impact of the citing on the additional research.
Eg, if an article discussed the impact of 3.0 analysis and based most of their sourcing on just the one article, then already the article wouldn’t have strong evidence for their discussion as it only has one source, but additionally if the original/referenced article was debunked then the referencing article would also be proven inaccurate, as it was based on the information in the original article.
An article being less credible doesn’t make it wrong, just lacking additional research and evidence to prove if true or false either way, which in turn makes it less valid as a cited source.

Data Deluge (W4 Part 1)

Article:
Summary – What are the main points?
In general the article is talking about how advances in technology have resulted in there being more data attained during research (“Today, some areas of science are facing hundred- to thousandfold increases in data volumes“, page 1297). In particular, the article is discussing the impact this has on the research community and research paradigms (“Computer simulations have become an essential third paradigm“, “a fourth paradigm is emerging, consisting of the techniques and technologies needed to perform data-intensive science“, page 1297), discussing how the community lacks knowledge of how to make use of the data deluge due to a lack of database integration slowing down research potential (“data-intensive science has been slow to develop due to the subtleties of databases, schemas, and ontologies, and general lack of understanding of these topics by the scientific community.“, page 1298)
Referenced article: http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/2009/bell2009a.pdf / http://science.sciencemag.org/content/323/5919/1297.full
G Bell, T Hey, A Szalay (2009, March 6), Beyond the Data Deluge Science Magazine, p1297-1298

Where was the article published?
It was published to ScienceMag.org, a peer-reviewed academic journal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(Journal))

How credible is it?
Very, as it’s a peer reviewed journal, meaning the topics published to it are likely to be very thorough and accurate, and have been reviewed and approved by other people in the top of the field being discussed.

What other articles has the author written? Do they lend credibility?
Gordon Bell has written articles about computer science (structures (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1990824), classes (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1327453), storing personal information (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1386841), databases (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1107460), multimedia (http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1027528), etc) which does lend credibility to the computer discussions in the article.
Tony Hey has also written a number of IT-based articles, which discus the research paradigm, grid computing, the data deluge and Cyberinfrastructure (http://scholar.google.co.nz/citations?user=b49Xi6AAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra).
Alex Szakay seems to have written more articles about astronomical science, which was also heavily discussed in the report in relation to data. (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/426387/meta / http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/519218/meta / http://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/389/3/1179/1017183)

How much other work has been written about the subject? And how does this affect the credibility?
Going by the search results for ‘Data Deluge’, there are a number of additional articles on the subject which have been written before and since the main ‘Beyond the Data Deluge’ article was, although many discuss the topic from a different angle (Examples: http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/2008/anderson2008a.pdf / https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/257648/1/The_Data_Deluge.pdf / http://science.sciencemag.org/content/331/6018/717 / https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00799-007-0022-9 / http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.111.7425&rep=rep1&type=pdf / https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046406000190). This lends credibility, as it shows the topic has been researched and discussed in other places and by different people.