This page is a glossary of Operating systems terminology. == A == access token: In Microsoft Windows operating systems, an access token contains the security credentials for a login session and identifies the user, the user's groups, the user's privileges, and, in some cases, a particular application. == B == binary semaphore: See semaphore. booting: In computing, booting (also known as booting up) is the initial set of operations that a computer performs after electrical power is switched on or when the computer is reset. This can take tens of seconds and typically involves performing a power-on self-test, locating and initializing peripheral devices, and then finding, loading and starting the operating system. == C == cache: In computer science, a cache is a component that transparently stores data so that future requests for that data can be served faster. The data that is stored within a cache might be values that have been computed earlier or duplicates of original values that are stored elsewhere. cloud: Cloud computing operating systems are recent, and were not mentioned in Gagne's 8th Edition (2009). In contrast, by Gagne's 9th (2012), cloud o/s received 3 pages of coverage (41, 42, 716). Doeppner (2011) mentions them (p. 3), but only to prove that operating systems "are not a solved problem" and that even if the day of the dedicated PC is waning, cloud computing has created an entirely new opportunity for o/s development ala sharing, networks, memory, parallelism, etc. Gagne (2012) adds that in addition to numerous traditional o/s's at cloud warehouses, Virtual machine o/s (VMMs), Eucalyptus, Vware, vCloud Director and others are being developed specifically for cloud management with numerous traditional o/s features (security, threads, file and memory management, guis, etc.) (p. 42). Microsoft's investment in cloud aspects of o/s tend to support that argument. concurrency == D == daemon: Operating systems often start daemons at boot time and serve the function of responding to network requests, hardware activity, or other programs by performing some task. Daemons can also configure hardware (like udevd on some Linux systems), run scheduled tasks (like cron), and perform a variety of other tasks. == E == == F == == G == == H == == I == == J == == K == kernel: In computing, the kernel is a computer program that manages input/output requests from software and translates them into data processing instructions for the central processing unit and other electronic components of a computer. The kernel is a fundamental part of a modern computer's operating system. == L == lock: In computer science, a lock or mutex (from mutual exclusion) is a synchronization mechanism for enforcing limits on access to a resource in an environment where there are many threads of execution. A lock is designed to enforce a mutual exclusion concurrency control policy. == M == mutual exclusion: Mutual exclusion is to allow only one process at a time to access the same critical section (a part of code which accesses the critical resource). This helps prevent race conditions. mutex: See lock. == N == == O == == P == paging daemon: See daemon. process == Q == == R == == S == semaphore: In computer science, particularly in operating systems, a semaphore is a variable or abstract data type that is used for controlling access, by multiple processes, to a common resource in a parallel programming or a multi user environment. == T == thread: In computer science, a thread of execution is the smallest sequence of programmed instructions that can be managed independently by an operating system scheduler. The scheduler itself is a light-weight process. The implementation of threads and processes differs from one operating system to another, but in most cases, a thread is contained inside a process. templating: In an o/s context, templating refers to creating a single virtual machine image as a guest operating system, then saving it as a tool for multiple running virtual machines (Gagne, 2012, p. 716). The technique is used both in virtualization and cloud computing management, and is common in large server warehouses. == U == == V == == W == == Z ==
WomanStats Project
The WomanStats Project is a donor-funded research and database project housed at Brigham Young University that "seeks to collect detailed statistical data on the status of women around the world, and to connect that data with data on the security of states." The WomanStats Database aims to provide a comprehensive compilation of information on the status of women in the world. Coders comb the extant literature and conduct expert interviews to find qualitative and quantitative information on over 300 indicators of women's status in 174 countries with populations of at least 200,000. Access to the online database is free. == History and structure == WomanStats began as an outgrowth of a paper Dr. Valerie M. Hudson (of the Brigham Young University Political Science department) and one of her graduate students, Andrea den Boer, published in International Security on the association between national security and the abnormal sex ratio in Asia. After the success and influence of their first article, (later added as one of their top twenty national security articles of that journal of all time), Hudson and den Boer did further research on the connection between the status of women and national security, but found that there was no single database that covered the range of topics that they needed for their research. Consequently, they began compiling information on variables regarding the status of women around the world. The database was officially formed in 2001 and grew exponentially as it later added more variables. The Project went live on the Internet in July 2007. The principal investigators are: Valerie M. Hudson (International Relations), Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill (Psychology, emeritus), and Chad F. Emmett (Geography) all from Brigham Young University, Mary Caprioli from the University of Minnesota, Duluth (International Relations), Rose McDermott from Brown University (International Relations), Andrea Den Boer from the University of Kent at Canterbury in the United Kingdom (International Relations) and S. Matthew Stearmer from the Ohio State University (Sociology; doctoral student). Approximately a dozen undergraduate and graduate students at Brigham Young University and Texas A&M University work at any one time as coders for the project. The coders take the raw quantitative and qualitative data collected in government reports, news articles, research papers, etc. and sort the applicable information on women into categories. They may also implement scales developed by the principal investigators, or that they (the students) themselves have developed. == Database == As of February 2011, the database has 307 variables, covers 174 nations with populations over 200,000, uses 18,015 sources and contains over 111,000 individual data points. All data is referenced to original sources. Not every variable has information for each country; similarly, not all countries have information for each variable: overall, about 70% of country-variable combinations have information. These database coding gaps exist where information is not available or is incomplete, or variables are not collected and reported by governments or international organizations. At times, information from different sources may be contradictory, and the WomanStats Database records this discrepant information for triangulation purposes. == Users and role of the database == The database is meant to help fill a hole in the extant data on the situation of women around the world. WomanStats data and research has been vetted and/or used by the United Nations, the United States Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the World Bank. Their data and research were also used by the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in crafting the International Violence Against Women’s Act. The Inter-Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality (IANWGE) of the United Nations has stated that the WomanStats project "filled a major gap in the availability of data on women" (2007). Victor Asal and Mitchell Brown, researchers not affiliated with WomanStats, stated in an article published in Politics and Policy that "one of the most significant challenges of cross-national empirical studies of the prevalence of interpersonal violence is the paucity of available data, particularly reliable data," and that "WomanStats has allowed for an important first glimpse at analyzing the factors related to interpersonal violence." They conclude by stating that "Our findings suggest that, in the same way that larger disciplinary resources have invested in interstate and intrastate war, disciplinary resources need to be expended in creating a data set exploring interpersonal violence. Until the rights and the lives of women and children are taken as seriously as the survival of states by more proactively collaborating on projects like WomanStats, we will continue to only have a small lens through which to understand problems like this." Princeton University professor Evan S. Liberman wrote, "Although data on political regimes and group conflict have been in far greater demand by political scientists than data on gender politics and policies, two gender-related databases provide...examples of innovative HIRDs. Both the Womanstats database project (Hudson et al. 2009) and the Research Network on Gender Politics and the State (RNGS) project (McBride et al. 2008) are well-integrated presentations of quantitative and qualitative data characterizing the quality of gender relations around the world and, in particular, analytic descriptions of the treatment of women."." == Research == The research component of WomanStats focuses on exploring the relationship between the situation of women and the behavior and security of states. Current research initiatives include: Exploring the relationship between violent instability and inequity and family law. Examining the effect of polygyny and marriage market dislocations on the rise of suicide terrorism. Documenting discrepancies between laws on the books and cultural practices on the ground concerning gender issues. Investigating how well the situation of women predicts the peacefulness of nations-states, compared to their variables such as democracy, wealth, and civilization. The Project has published articles in International Security, International Studies Quarterly, Peace and Conflict, Journal of Peace Research, Political Psychology, Cumberland Law Review, and World Political Review, and has a forthcoming book from Columbia University Press.
PROMT
ProMT is a lead Russian developer of language translation software for businesses and private users since 1991. The company provides on-premises software based on neural technologies. == History == On March 6, 1998, ProMT launched a free online translation services, which is now known as PROMT.One. In 1997, ProMT and the French company Softissimo developed a line of products for the European company Reverso. == Technology == Historically, ProMT systems used rule-based machine translation (RBMT) technology. In 2011 a hybrid approach which combined rule-based and statistical MT was implemented. In 2019, ProMT introduced its new neural technology and flagship solution - PROMT Neural Translation Server. Since then all MT systems developed by ProMT are based on neural machine translation. The software can run on Microsoft Windows, Linux, MacOS, iOS and Android and works in offline mode providing secure machine translation. As of 2025, it translates 62 languages from and to English, German, and Russian.
HFST
Helsinki Finite-State Technology (HFST) is a computer programming library and set of utilities for natural language processing with finite-state automata and finite-state transducers. It is free and open-source software, released under a mix of the GNU General Public License version 3 (GPLv3) and the Apache License. == Features == The library functions as an interchanging interface to multiple backends, such as OpenFST, foma and SFST. The utilities comprise various compilers, such as hfst-twolc (a compiler for morphological two-level rules), hfst-lexc (a compiler for lexicon definitions) and hfst-regexp2fst (a regular expression compiler). Functions from Xerox's proprietary scripting language xfst is duplicated in hfst-xfst, and the pattern matching utility pmatch in hfst-pmatch, which goes beyond the finite-state formalism in having recursive transition networks (RTNs). The library and utilities are written in C++, with an interface to the library in Python and a utility for looking up results from transducers ported to Java and Python. Transducers in HFST may incorporate weights depending on the backend. For performing FST operations, this is currently only possible via the OpenFST backend. HFST provides two native backends, one designed for fast lookup (hfst-optimized-lookup), the other for format interchange. Both of them can be weighted. == Uses == HFST has been used for writing various linguistic tools, such as spell-checkers, hyphenators, and morphologies. Morphological dictionaries written in other formalisms have also been converted to HFST's formats.
FrameNet
FrameNet is a group of online lexical databases based upon the theory of meaning known as Frame semantics, developed by linguist Charles J. Fillmore. The project's fundamental notion is simple: most words' meanings may be best understood in terms of a semantic frame, which is a description of a certain kind of event, connection, or item and its actors. As an illustration, the act of cooking usually requires the following: a cook, the food being cooked, a container to hold the food while it is being cooked, and a heating instrument. Within FrameNet, this act is represented by a frame named Apply_heat, and its components (Cook, Food, Container, and Heating_instrument), are referred to as frame elements (FEs). The Apply_heat frame also lists a number of words that represent it, known as lexical units (LUs), like fry, bake, boil, and broil. Other frames are simpler. For example, Placing only has an agent or cause, a theme—something that is placed—and the location where it is placed. Some frames are more complex, like Revenge, which contains more FEs (offender, injury, injured party, avenger, and punishment). As in the examples of Apply_heat and Revenge below, FrameNet's role is to define the frames and annotate sentences to demonstrate how the FEs fit syntactically around the word that elicits the frame. == Concepts == === Frames === A frame is a schematic representation of a situation involving various participants, props, and other conceptual roles. Examples of frame names are Being_born and Locative_relation. A frame in FrameNet contains a textual description of what it represents (a frame definition), associated frame elements, lexical units, example sentences, and frame-to-frame relations. === Frame elements === Frame elements (FE) provide additional information to the semantic structure of a sentence. Each frame has a number of core and non-core FEs which can be thought of as semantic roles. Core FEs are essential to the meaning of the frame while non-core FEs are generally descriptive (such as time, place, manner, etc.) For example: The only core FE of the Being_born frame is called Child; non-core FEs Time, Place, Means, etc. Core FEs of the Commerce_goods-transfer frame include the Seller, Buyer, and Goods, while non-core FEs include a Place, Purpose, etc. FrameNet includes shallow data on syntactic roles that frame elements play in the example sentences. For example, for a sentence like "She was born about AD 460", FrameNet would mark She as a noun phrase referring to the Child frame element, and "about AD 460" as a noun phrase corresponding to the Time frame element. Details of how frame elements can be realized in a sentence are important because this reveals important information about the subcategorization frames as well as possible diathesis alternations (e.g. "John broke the window" vs. "The window broke") of a verb. === Lexical units === Lexical units (LUs) are lemmas, with their part of speech, that evoke a specific frame. In other words, when an LU is identified in a sentence, that specific LU can be associated with its specific frame(s). For each frame, there may be many LUs associated to that frame, and also there may be many frames that share a specific LU; this is typically the case with LUs that have multiple word senses. Alongside the frame, each lexical unit is associated with specific frame elements by means of the annotated example sentences. For example, lexical units that evoke the Complaining frame (or more specific perspectivized versions of it, to be precise), include the verbs complain, grouse, lament, and others. === Example sentences === Frames are associated with example sentences and frame elements are marked within the sentences. Thus, the sentence She was born about AD 460 is associated with the frame Being_born, while She is marked as the frame element Child and "about AD 460" is marked as Time. From the start, the FrameNet project has been committed to looking at evidence from actual language use as found in text collections like the British National Corpus. Based on such example sentences, automatic semantic role labeling tools are able to determine frames and mark frame elements in new sentences. === Valences === FrameNet also exposes statistics on the valence of each frame; that is, the number and position of the frame elements within example sentences. The sentence She was born about AD 460 falls in the valence pattern NP Ext, INI --, NP Dep which occurs twice in the FrameNet's annotation report for the born.v lexical unit, namely: She was born about AD 460, daughter and granddaughter of Roman and Byzantine emperors, whose family had been prominent in Roman politics for over 700 years. He was soon posted to north Africa, and never met their only child, a daughter born 8 June 1941. === Frame relations === FrameNet additionally captures relationships between different frames using relations. These include the following: Inheritance: When one frame is a more specific version of another, more abstract, parent frame. Anything that is true about the parent frame must also be true about the child frame, and a mapping is specified between the frame elements of the parent and the frame elements of the child. Perspectivization: A neutral frame is connected to a frame with a specific perspective of the same scenario. For example, Commerce_transfer-goods is considered from the perspective of the buyer in Commerce_buy and from that of the seller in Commerce_sell. Subframe: Some frames refer to complex scenarios that consist of several individual states or events that can be described by separate frames. For example, Criminal_process is composed of Arrest, Trial, and so on. Precedence: This relation captures the temporal order that holds between subframes of a complex frame. For example, within the Cycle_of_life_and_death frame, the subframe Death is preceded by the subframe Being_born. Causative and Inchoative: These two relations mark, for causative- and inchoative-aspect frames, the separate stative frame they refer to. For example, the stative Position_on_a_scale (e.g. "She had a high salary") is described by the causative Cause_change_of_scalar_position (e.g. "She raised his salary") and by the inchoative Change_position_on_a_scale frame (e.g. "Her salary increased"). Using: This relation marks a frame that in some way involves another frame. For example, Judgment_communication uses both Judgment and Statement, but does not inherit from either of them because there is no clear correspondence of frame elements. See also: Connects frames that bear some resemblance but need to be distinguished carefully. == Applications == FrameNet has proven to be useful in a number of computational applications, because computers need additional knowledge in order to recognize that "John sold a car to Mary" and "Mary bought a car from John" describe essentially the same situation, despite using two quite different verbs, different prepositions and a different word order. FrameNet has been used in applications like question answering, paraphrasing, recognizing textual entailment, and information extraction, either directly or by means of Semantic Role Labeling tools. The first automatic system for Semantic Role Labeling (SRL, sometimes also referred to as "shallow semantic parsing") was developed by Daniel Gildea and Daniel Jurafsky based on FrameNet in 2002. Semantic Role Labeling has since become one of the standard tasks in natural language processing, with the latest version (1.7) of FrameNet now fully supported in the Natural Language Toolkit. Since frames are essentially semantic descriptions, they are similar across languages, and several projects have arisen over the years that have relied on the original FrameNet as the basis for additional non-English FrameNets, for Spanish, Japanese, German, and Polish, among others.
N-jet
An N-jet is the set of (partial) derivatives of a function f ( x ) {\displaystyle f(x)} up to order N. Specifically, in the area of computer vision, the N-jet is usually computed from a scale space representation L {\displaystyle L} of the input image f ( x , y ) {\displaystyle f(x,y)} , and the partial derivatives of L {\displaystyle L} are used as a basis for expressing various types of visual modules. For example, algorithms for tasks such as feature detection, feature classification, stereo matching, tracking and object recognition can be expressed in terms of N-jets computed at one or several scales in scale space.
Law and Corpus Linguistics
Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is an academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts (statutes, constitutions, contracts, etc.). Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues. == History == A 2005 law review article by Lawrence Solan noted in passing that corpus linguistics had potential for its application to interpreting legal texts. But the first systematic exploration and advocacy of applying the tools and methodologies of corpus linguistics to legal interpretive questions of law and corpus linguistics came in the fall of 2010, when the BYU Law Review published a note by Stephen Mouritsen, entitled The Dictionary is Not a Fortress: Definitional Fallacies and a Corpus-Based Approach to Plain Meaning. The note argued that dictionaries are the primary linguistic tool used by judges to determine the plain or ordinary meaning of words and phrases, and highlighted the deficiencies of such an approach. In its stead, the note proposed using corpus linguistics. And the note would be later cited by Adam Liptak in a New York Times article on statutory construction. Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) gained greater legitimacy in July 2011 with the first judicial opinion in American history utilizing corpus linguistics to determine the meaning of a legal text: In re the Adoption of Baby E.Z. In a concurrence in part and in the judgment, Justice Thomas Lee wrote to put forth an alternative ground for the majority's holding—interpreting the phrase "custody determination" by using corpus linguistics. Justice Lee looked at 500 randomized sample sentences from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) and found that the most common sense of "custody" was in the context of divorce rather than adoption. Further, he found that "custody" is ten times more likely to co-occur (or collocate) with "divorce" than with "adoption". From that evidence Justice Lee concluded that he "would find that the custody proceedings covered by the Act are limited to proceedings resulting in the modifiable custody orders of a divorce", rather than the broader range of custody proceedings. Other jurisprudence and scholarship would follow. In a 2015 concurrence in State v. Rasabout, Justice Lee used a COCA search to determine that "discharge" when used with a firearm (or one of its synonyms) overwhelmingly referred to a single shot rather than emptying the entire magazine of the weapon. And in 2016, four of the five justices joined a footnote in a majority opinion by Justice Lee commending a party for using corpus linguistics in its briefing even though the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the related question. Finally, in 2016 the Michigan Supreme Court became the first court to use a linguist-designed corpus in a majority opinion (COCA), with both the majority and the dissent turning to COCA to determine the meaning of the word "information". In 2020, courts desiring to bolster the legal theory of original intent have sought the opportunity to undertake analyses of statutes utilizing corpus linguistics. In a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, Jones v. Becerra (No. 20-56174), a case involving the Second Amendment and the constitutionality of a California statute which bans the sale of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, a Ninth Circuit panel requested that the parties address three questions: 1) “What is the original public meaning of the Second Amendment phrases: ‘A well regulated Militia’; ‘the right of the people’; and ‘shall not be infringed’? 2) How does the tool of corpus linguistics help inform the determination of the original public meaning of those Second Amendment phrases?” 3) How do the data yielded from corpus linguistics assist in the interpretation of the constitutionality of age-based restrictions under the Second Amendment? As to scholarship, in 2012, Mouritsen followed up his original work with an article in the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, where he further refined and promoted the use of corpus-based methods for determining questions of legal ambiguity. Additionally, in 2016 two essays and an article on law and corpus linguistics were published. The Yale Law Journal Forum published Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning: A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical. Written by Justice Lee and two co-authors, the essay urged originalists to turn to corpus linguistics to improve the rigor and accuracy of originalist scholarship. And in response, the Forum published an essay by Lawrence Solan (a Brooklyn Law professor with a PhD in linguistics), Can Corpus Linguistics Help Make Originalism Scientific? The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal published The Merciful Corpus: The Rule of Lenity, Ambiguity and Corpus Linguistics by Daniel Ortner. In the article Ortner applied corpus linguistics to determining whether sufficient ambiguity exists to trigger the rule of lenity in five Supreme Court cases. Looking forward, in 2017 two more articles are slated for publication. Lee Strang focuses on corpus linguistics and originalism in the U.C. Davis Law Review, and Lawrence Solan and Tammy Gales explore corpus linguistics in the context of finding ordinary meaning in statutory interpretation in the International Journal of Legal Discourse. Lawyers and journalists have also taken notice of corpus linguistics at it relates to the law. In 2010, Neal Goldfarb filed the first known brief in the Supreme Court using corpus linguistics (COCA) to determine whether the ordinary meaning of "personal" referred to corporations in the case FCC v. AT&T. The amicus brief looked at the top collocates (words that co-occur) of "personal" in COHA as well as BYU's Time Magazine Corpus. And writing for The Atlantic, Ben Zimmer took note of this new trend, referring to corpus linguistics in the courts as "Like Lexis on Steroids". On the academic front, in 2013 BYU Law School started the first class on law and corpus linguistics, co-taught by Mouritsen, Lee, and (now Dean) Gordon Smith. The class is currently in its fourth year. And in February 2016, BYU Law School hosted the inaugural conference on LCL, with over two dozen legal and linguistic scholars from around the country discussing and debating the next steps forward for the growing academic movement. The conference has been held regularly in subsequent years. At the 2016 conference BYU Law School announced its plans and progress on the Corpus of Founding Era American English (COFEA), a corpus that covers 1760–1799 and contains more than 120 million words have been collected from founding era letters, diaries, newspapers, non-fiction books, fiction, sermons, speeches, debates, legal cases, and other legal materials.