Dominant group/Project Summary

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
This image shows a cup of Espresso. Credit: Bjb-de.

Limit the project summary with respect to dominant group to less than or equal to one page.

Write the summary in the third person.

Clearly address in separate statements the intellectual merit of the proposed activity and the broader impacts resulting.

Have the summary be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a literate lay reader.

Project summary[edit]

Main source: Project Summary

Make it a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal is funded.

Include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed.

Dominant group[edit]

Main source: Dominant group

Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Points of interest[edit]

The concept embodied by the two-word term dominant group may be primordial to human society, culture, and language. Searching context and usage of the term and its relative synonyms in contemporary and extinct languages, and those languages on the verge of extinction may reveal important facts about this concept. It is sometimes the case that a language is on the verge of extinction precisely because of the presence of a dominant group, especially one engaging in monopolistic or oligopolistic practices.

Dominant group may represent a force for extinction in the evolution and application of language, specifically terminology, to the real and imaginary world.

Intellectual merit[edit]

The current activity is exploratory in nature and is resulting in an advance of knowledge and understanding about the term dominant group and its uses within various fields. The identification of its own field may result; thereby, in allowing differentiation of other fields so as to determine how knowledge is advanced across those different fields. It's like differential equations. Although differential equations is a subject within mathematics, it's spread to other subjects such as physics with ensuing use advances knowledge within physics. Differential equations is a two-word scientific term.

Advancing knowledge and understanding[edit]

The proposed activity consists of finding the origin of dominant group or one of its relative synonyms, defining the two-word term perhaps from context (lexical pragmatics) (or perhaps rigorously), determining why scientists outside biology (especially evolution or entomology) use the term, and verifying its divergence and radiance by examples.

The field of dominant group appears to be regions, or the science of regions. Within a region in any science, including the social sciences, there may be a dominant group. Each region is defined by its limits. These limits in turn may allow for a dominant group. Change the limits (characteristics) for any region and the dominant group may go extinct. If a regional genome in biology lacks the potency to take advantage of any change in regional characteristics, there will be no dominant biological group.

In each field of use[edit]

Main sources: Dominant group/Fields and Fields

Part of the proposed activity is to determine how dominant group advances knowledge and understanding within each field which may be considered its own field or across all these different fields.

Dominant group is already being used as a term to advance knowledge and understanding across a great many fields.

In theory, dominant group in any field may have at least two uses: (1) a group of field-based entities, sources, or objects, or (2) a dominant group in some way associated with that field.

In practice, depending upon the scientist's intent, dominant group may be the bad group that engages in monopolistic practices, or socially negative behavior such as discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional possible criminal activity against other demographic groups.

It can also serve as an empirical identifier in observations. At one extreme, it is 100 % of the effect or phenomenon under study. At the other, it is a minority group effect that perhaps has some natural or artificial unfair advantage. In a society a dominant group often has an unfair advantage such as numbers, military power, or assets and money. Here's an example of how searching and using the power of the internet can bring about remarkable discoveries.

In an article that appeared in the American Scientist (May-June 2012) issue entitled "Herschel and the Puzzle of Infra-red", "Jack White mentions that it is not known who coined the term "infrared.""[1] "A Google Books search for "infra-red" finds two articles published in April 1874, both of which use the term in the context of Edmond Bacquerel's treatise on light."[1] There is an 1867 work using the French infra-rouge and one in English near the same time using "infra-red", "having translated it from the French."[1]

The author responds that "ultra red" and "infra-red" appear in a paper from 1873, researched in 1960 "in the dark ages before the Internet. Rosenberg's find is a reminder of the Internet's amazing, growing power to search original works in different languages."[2]

Evolution[edit]

The term dominant group and perhaps the concept the term represents has been an integral part of nearly every theory of evolution.

Hypothesis: As an evolutionary process, a dominant group may be a force for extinction by driving a number of groups to extinction and a force for speciation when spatial or temporal dispersion creates diversity and isolation which may eventually produce new groups. As a force for extinction a particular dominant group may also through its actions on other groups ultimately produce its own extinction event. This departure from a zone then allows other groups to fill the niche.

Changes in the characteristics or properties of a region may force the dominant group into extinction; thereby, making room for the next dominant group. However, some changes may not allow a dominant group to emerge. Additionally, properties of dominance may be appearance only. No competition for resources may have occurred.

Lexical pragmatics[edit]

Main source: Pragmatics

From a metadefinitional point of view each use of dominant group has a relationship between members of the dominant group, a population from which the dominant group is a subset, a criterion for dominance, and a region, range, distribution or "in their own country". But, each of these four structures may have their meaning in the context within which the author or speaker places the two-word term.

Oldest two-word terms[edit]

It may be one of the oldest two-word terms. Some of its relative synonyms predate 1826: for example, the phrase “die Dominanten Religionen von ganz Europa”[3] occurs in 1726.

Origin[edit]

Main sources: Dominant group/Origin and Origins

The proposed activity consists of finding the origin of dominant group or one of its relative synonyms. The fundamental concepts encompassed by the totality of relative synonyms may have very early origins in primitive languages.

Own field[edit]

Main sources: Dominant group/Fields and Fields

The first question to answer is "What is dominant group's own field?"

It is a term, specifically a two-word term. Its overall field is linguistics, or language, terminology. It is and refers to an entity. An overall field allowing application to other fields is regions or the science of regions, usually spatial, but not necessarily always spatial. Spatial science or the science of space may be the appropriate field for dominant group.

Transformative concepts[edit]

"[T]wo-word glossary items are the most common technical terms".[4] Dominant group is a likely two-word glossary item captured by data mining algorithms. A first-principle's demonstration that dominant group is a two-word term yields one test standard for data mining algorithms to find.

Dominant group serves as an indicator that original research has been conducted, especially when it appears in a primary source.

As a two-word term, is dominant group a member of the dominant group of two-word terms?

This exploratory investigation into dominant group and its usage has the potential to demonstrate that dominant group

  1. when identified is a causative force for change that by its nature requires further investigation,
  2. should be no longer used as a term because its meanings are unclear and vague, or
  3. identifies an inhibiting or moderating force that works against 'high-risk, high-reward' "research with an inherent high degree of uncertainty and the capability to produce a major impact on important problems in biomedical/behavioral research"[5], or in other fields.

Conception and organization[edit]

This exploratory effort uses the template system (the dominant group template is near the bottom of this page) to organize and keep readily available the efforts already begun and those still needed.

Broader impacts[edit]

Exploring modern languages, languages on the verge of extinction, and extinct languages for terms that are either relative or exact synonyms (translations) for dominant group advances discovery and raises awareness of meaning and terminology.

For example: "In January 2008, a coalition of over 40 civil society groups endorsed a statement of principles[6] calling for precautionary action related to nanotechnology."[7] "The group has urged action based on eight principles. They are 1) A Precautionary Foundation 2) Mandatory Nano-specific Regulations 3) Health and Safety of the Public and Workers 4) Environmental Protection 5) Transparency 6) Public Participation 7) Inclusion of Broader Impacts and 8) Manufacturer Liability."[7]

"Nanomedicines are just beginning to enter drug regulatory processes, but within a few decades could comprise a dominant group within the class of innovative pharmaceuticals, the current thinking of government safety and cost-effectiveness regulators appearing to be that these products give rise to few if any nano-specific issues.[8]"[7] Bold added.

Advancing discovery and training[edit]

"Ethnocide is when a dominant political group attempts to purposely put an end to a people’s traditional way of life. Linguicide (linguistic genocide) is when such a dominant group tries to extinguish the language of a minority group, say by punishing anyone caught speaking it."[9] Exploring the meaning and use of dominant group in such context increases understanding of the forces at work characterized by the terms inclusion.

Underrepresented group participation[edit]

The proposed activity is ongoing at Wikiversity.

"Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning. We invite teachers, students, and researchers to join us in creating open educational resources and collaborative learning communities. To learn more about Wikiversity, try a guided tour or start editing now."[10]

Infrastructure enhancement[edit]

Information may be made available in various venues:

  1. databases or contributions to other databases of all institutions, agencies, and individuals who manage similar databases,
  2. contributions to ongoing network analyses, and
  3. information sharing and access.[11]

Wikiversity is the premier online research and education database, facility, network and partnership of the WMF. That the proposed activity is ongoing at Wikiversity makes the information generated available through access and sharing.

"Just as an FYI, Wikiversity has been placed among the 'top picks' for this Google+ education list. It has been shared over 2000 times since its original posting."[12]

The proposed activity would partner NSF with Wikiversity to enhance the infrastructure for research and education, including where possible, facilities, instrumentation, and networks within Wikiversity and between Wikiversity and NSF.

Broad dissemination[edit]

Dominant group is an ongoing original research project that is being open-sourced here at Wikiversity both as a learning resource and to yield the broadest possible dissemination.

Benefits to society[edit]

"Dominant group(s)", designated vaguely by the term, and the associated ideologies of exclusion, serve as apparent focused power structures that increase existing disparities in wealth and status, while marginalizing or disenfranchising "Others".[11]

This proposed activity explores the two-word term "dominant group" to increase awareness of what dominant groups are linguistically as well as socially and scientifically. As the original research effort is ongoing at Wikiversity it benefits all audiences that explore learning through Wikiversity. A successful collaboration between NSF and Wikiversity helps to disseminate the societal benefits of NSF to any local community where some access to the internet and computer terminals in various forms exists such as at pre-schools, elementary and secondary schools, high schools and universities.

Dominant group is a two-word term that occurs at least once in some 280 English Wikipedia entries. These usages may be original research, plagiarism, copyright violations, properly cited uses, or simply mistakes in usage by editors and contributors. Or, dominant group because of its long history may have become a commonly used two-word term that crosses the barrier between common language words that are in a dictionary and the vocabulary of specialists, scholars, and experts. On the general web as sampled by Google, dominant group yields about 513,000 results. Many of these relate right back to the ongoing research at Wikiversity or to the earlier dominant group entries on Wikipedia that were deleted as being original research.

As a potential indicator of copyright violation, dominant group may serve to help improve major web-based resources such as Wikipedia. On Wikipedia dominant group occurs in some 280 entries and as a split term such as dominant ethnic group in some 15,700 entries. Overall the English Wikipedia contains some 4,014,000 entries.

Articles or presentations of the research outside Wikiversity will be prepared openly here at Wikiversity as a teaching and training resource. Publication of such resources in open-access journals or scientific society journals benefits multiple audiences.

Before the benefits of the term and its relative synonyms is assessed, there is a need for some form of control group to serve as comparison. It should be noted that the two-word scientific term control group is a relative synonym of dominant group.

Hypotheses[edit]

Main source: Hypotheses
  1. A dominant group may be an entity, source, or object.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Gary Rosenberg (September-October 2012). "Infrared Dating, In: Letters to the Editor". American Scientist 100 (5): 355. http://online.qmags.com/AMS17717438?sessionID=46B02956BEE440ED324FF282F&cid=1902739&eid=17438#pg5&mode2. Retrieved 2012-08-16. 
  2. Jack White (September-October 2012). "Mr. White responds, In: Letters to the Editor". American Scientist 100 (5): 355. http://online.qmags.com/AMS17717438?sessionID=46B02956BEE440ED324FF282F&cid=1902739&eid=17438#pg5&mode2. Retrieved 2012-08-16. 
  3. Johann Jacob Scheuchzer, Anton L. Keller, Moritz Anton Cappeller (1726). Lucerna Lucens Alethophili: "Eines Catholischen Priesters Schreiben An Aretophilum Seinen lieben Freund und Mit-Capitularen”. Frenstadt. pp. 128. http://books.google.com/books?id=kEk-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA27&hl=en. Retrieved 2012-04-10. 
  4. Youngja Park, Roy J Byrd and Branimir Boguraev (2002). Automatic Glossary Extraction: Beyond Terminology Identification, In: "Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics". Morristown, New Jersey. pp. 772-8. http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/coling2002/proceedings/data/area-27/co-372.pdf. Retrieved 2012-03-05. 
  5. Austin, F.C. (2008). High-Risk High-Reward Research Demonstration Project, presentation given to the NIH Council of Councils. Available at: http://dpcpsi.nih.gov/pdf/CoC-112008-Austin-HRHR.pdf
  6. Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials. International Center for Technology Assessment. 2008. http://www.icta.org/global/actions.cfm?page=15&type=366&topic=8. 
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3505: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil).
  8. Vines T and Faunce TA Assessing the safety and cost-effectiveness of early nanodrugs Journal of Law and Medicine 2007; 16: 822-845
  9. Thomas N. Headland (2003). Thirty Endangered Languages in the Philippines, In: Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session. 47. Toledo-Cebu: Philippine Tourism. pp. 12. http://philippinetourism.ph/filer/toledo-cebu/2003Headland.pdf. Retrieved 2012-08-08. 
  10. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 3505: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil).
  11. 11.0 11.1 William Doelle (August 2011). Proposal Submitted to NSF Archaeology Program by: Center for Desert Archaeology. archaeologysouthwest.org. http://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pdf/research_priority_supporting_edge_of_salado_cover.pdf. Retrieved 2012-01-29. 
  12. The Jade Knight (March 20, 2012). Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/March 2012, In: Wikiversity. http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/March_2012. Retrieved 2012-04-13. 

External links[edit]

{{Dominant group}}{{Linguistics resources}}{{Semantics resources}}{{Terminology resources}}