dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
, 2016). The elements resulting from the ontological analysis can be subsequently refined and realized within organizational structures underlying the MAS to-be and internal mechanisms of agents. This ontological analysis is integrated in the ASPECS methodology as one of its initial activities. The ontology resulting from this activity is exploited to define the roles and organizations that will be embodied by the agents. This paper is organized as follows: some related works are presented in Section 2, Section 3 presents the ASPECS methodology and combinatory automaton concepts. Section 4 details the approach principles. Section 5 illustrates the approach with an example. This example is a smart grids software simulator  (Basso et al. , 2011)  that results from the presented approach, eventually Section 6 concludes.
The ASPECS methodology ASPECS  (Cossentino et al. , 2010 (Cossentino et al. , , 2013a ) is an agent oriented design methodology for the analysis and design of hierarchic multiagent solutions starting from the requirements analysis to code production and deployment of the system on a specific platform. The main principles underlying ASPECS are described by metamodels defining organizational concepts such as Organizations, Roles, Interactions and Capacities. In this context, an Agent plays roles within organizations. A notion of compound agents is modeled by the concept of Holon. In the ASPECS methodology and in this paper we use the term Holon as it was defined by  Koestler (1967) : the term Holon comes from the Greek 'holos' meaning 'whole', and the suffix 'on' meaning 'part' or entity (for instance as a proton or neutron is a part of an atom); hence a holon is a whole to those parts beneath it in the hierarchy but at the same time a part to those wholes above it.
A holon is an element which can be seen as both a component part of an upper level, and as a compound of any other (lower level) holons. Therefore, the notion of holon is inherently recursive and can naturally describe hierarchical systems. This concept has been adopted by the community of distributed artificial intelligence as holonic multi-agent systems  (Gerber et al. , 1999)  (designated as HMAS from now on). The most relevant phases of the ASPECS methodology are: the requirements analysis phase, providing a description of the problem domain from an organizational point of view. It formalizes the available knowledge about the problem domain within an ontology. The agent societies conception phase that should provide a solution to the problem described in the previous phase in terms of agents/holons, The implementation phase that describes the architecture of the MAS and provides the source code of the application.
(2010)  a Role is an expected behavior (a set of role tasks ordered by a plan) and a set of rights and obligations in the organizational context. The goal of each Role is to contribute to the fulfillment of (a part of) the requirements of the organization within which it is defined. Capacities allow Roles to pursue the objectives of the organization they belong to. In other words, a capacity is an abstract description of the know-how of the role. An organization is represented graphically by a stereotyped class diagram. Organizations are represented by packages containing classes stereotyped role and interaction between roles. Capacities are represented by stereotyped classes outside the organization package and linked to the relevant roles by specific relationships. Concerning the Agent Society Design phase, the main workproduct is the definition of the MAS architecture or holarchy (if holons are chosen instead of agents).
Methods We considered RCTs of treatments for femoral neck fracture in adults. We searched CEN-TRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials. gov up to November 2015. Two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted data and used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. A group of orthopedic surgeons grouped similar but not identical interventions under the same node. We synthesized the network using a Bayesian network meta-analysis model. We derived posterior odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs) for all possible pairwise comparisons. The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery.
Search strategy First, we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and MEDLINE for relevant systematic reviews and MAs of RCTs on the topic from inception to November 2015. From each selected review, we first collected the search equations used, to optimize our own search strategy. Second, we listed the included trials. Next, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for reports of RCTs from inception to November 2015, with no restriction on date or language. The search equation combined free-text words and keywords (Text A in S2 File). We used the methodological filters designed by the Cochrane collaboration to facilitate the identification of randomized trials ("Highly Sensitive Search Strategy" filter for MEDLINE and the filter designed by the UK Cochrane Center for EMBASE).
Geometry of networks of trials We produced graphs for 2 networks of trials. Each node represented an intervention and each edge a randomized comparison of 2 interventions. The first network included all trials and nodes corresponding to interventions as labeled by the original trial authors. The second network included trials contributing to the primary outcome and after grouping interventions as described above. We excluded two-arm trials comparing interventions within the same class (eg, a trial comparing unipolar and bipolar HA). A three-arm trial involving 2 interventions within the same class was analyzed as a two-arm trial by adding the outcome data for the arms that were grouped together. We excluded trials lacking a full description of interventions (eg, arthroplasty or osteosynthesis) and trials assessing a mixture of interventions (eg, screw or pin).
Data synthesis We synthesized data from the second network (ie, RCTs contributing to the primary outcome after grouping interventions). Data were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis: the analysis was based on the total number of randomly assigned participants. For missing outcome data, we used a conservative approach and imputed outcomes for the missing participants assuming that they did not experience the outcome (revision surgery). The treatment effect measure was the odds ratio (OR). First, we performed pairwise random-effects MAs by synthesizing trials that compared the same interventions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and by calculating the I 2 statistic and between-trial variance τ 2. Second, we performed a random-effects NMA within a Bayesian framework  [36].
Study design We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews published in 2013 in four general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Int Med), The BMJ (BMJ), JAMA and The Lancet (Lancet)). A random sample of new reviews was drawn from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library) in 2013, as Cochrane reviews are considered the gold standard in terms of systematic reviewing. Setting and selection of systematic reviews Systematic reviews were identified through a PubMed search in August 2014, using the syntax 'systematic review [Title] AND journal title [Journal], limit 01. 01. 2013 to 31. 12. 2013'. A computer-generated random sequence was used to select 25 reviews published in 2013 in the Cochrane Library (http://www. cochranelibrary. com/cochrane-database-of-systematicreviews/2013-table-of-contents.
Variables From each systematic review, we extracted the following information: the first author's name and country of affiliation; the number of co-authors; the name of the journal; the title of the review; the number of databases searched; the number of studies and study designs included; the language limitations applied; whether or not a protocol was registered and freely accessible; and, finally, sources of funding and possible conflicts of interest of the reviewers. Furthermore, we examined whether each of the selected reviews applied the following six procedures, they: (1) searched for unpublished trials; (2) contacted authors to identify unreported outcomes; (3) searched for duplicate publications (defined as a redundant republication of an already published study, with or without a cross-reference to the original article); (4) analysed the impact of the sponsors of the original studies on the conclusions of the review; (5) analysed the impact of possible conflicts of interest of the authors on the conclusions of the review; and (6) extracted information on ethical approval of included studies.
Bias Data from the reviews were extracted by one author (NE), and copied into a specifically designed spreadsheet. Two of the co-authors checked the data (AC and DMP). We contacted all the corresponding authors of the reviews and asked them to confirm our interpretation of their methods of review. This included their method regarding the search for unpublished trials, their contacts with the authors, their search for duplicate publications and their identification of misconduct. When there was discrepancy between our interpretation and the reviewers' answers, we used the latter. This was done by email, and a reminder was sent to those who had not replied within 2 weeks.
Characteristics of the reviews The characteristics of the reviews are described in table 2, online supplementary appendix tables 1A and 2A. Approximately 75% of the first authors were affiliated to an English-speaking institution. The protocols of all the Cochrane reviews were registered and available. However, protocols were available for only 17 reviews from the journals. Sources of funding were declared in 110 reviews. Among these 110, 24 declared that they had no funding at all. All the reviews declared presence or absence of conflicts of interest of the reviewers. The median number of databases searched was four. Additional references were searched in systematic reviews published previously and through contacting experts and/or authors of the original studies. Forty-two (36%) reviews only considered the English literature, and 6 (5%) reviews searched in Medline only.
A(21,25,30,31),B  (2, 17, 27)  Eleven reviewers (14%) provided information that changed our data extraction regarding the endpoint 'contact with authors of original studies'. One declared that authors had not been contacted,  B35  and 10 claimed that authors had been contacted although this was not reported in the published review. A  (12, 25, 31, 34) ,B(20,25,34),J(9,12),L1 Twenty-six reviewers (32%) provided information that changed our data extraction regarding the endpoint 'duplicate publication'. Terms used included 'duplicate', 'companion article', 'multiple publications', 'articles with overlapping datasets', or 'trials with identical patient population'. Three reviewers declared that, contrary to our assumption, they had not identified duplicate publications, A(25,26),J3 and 23 claimed having searched for duplicates although this was not reported in the published review.
Search of unpublished trials and test for publication bias Fifty-six reviewers (47%) either searched for unpublished trials or applied a statistical test to identify publication bias. Twenty-three reviewers (19%) did both. Unpublished studies were sought for in trial registries (eg, ClinicalTrials. gov or FDA database), or by contacting experts and manufacturers. The number of unpublished studies included in these reviews was inconsistently reported. Contacting the reviewers did not help us clarify this issue. Seven reviews (6%) only discussed the risk of publication bias, and 32 reviews (27%) did not mention it at all (table  3 ). Contact with authors to unearth unreported outcomes Seventy-three reviewers (62%) had contacted the authors of the original studies. Fifty-eight reviewers (49%) had searched for unreported results from the original articles.
Suspicion of misconduct Two reviewers suspected research misconduct in the articles included in their review and reported it accordingly. B31,J12 Contacting the other reviewers allowed us to uncover five additional cases of possible misconduct. Four agreed to be cited here; A26,B33,C16,L1 while one preferred to remain anonymous. Data falsification was suspected in three reviews. A26,C16, J12 One review, looking at the association of hydroxyethyl starch administration with mortality or acute kidney injury of critically ill patients, J12 included seven articles co-authored by Joachim Boldt. However, a survey performed in 2010, and focusing on Boldt's research published between 1999 and 2010, had led to the retraction of 80 of his articles due to data fabrication and lack of ethical approval.
Secondary endpoints The reviews published in the four medical journals differed in most characteristics examined in this paper. The reviews published in the Cochrane Library differed from all the other reviews (see online supplementary appendix table  2A ). There were also differences in procedures applied across the journals (see online supplementary appendix table  4A ). The only three reviews that had extracted data on ethical approval for the studies were published in the BMJ (2) and in the Cochrane Library (1). Finally, one review from the BMJ and one review from JAMA explicitly mentioned potential misconduct.
Strengths and weaknesses We used a clear and reproducible sampling method that was not limited to any medical specialty. The data analysed had been confirmed by the reviewers. This allowed us to quantify the proportion of procedures that were implemented but not reported by the reviewers. Finally, to our knowledge, this is the first analysis of the procedures used by systematic reviewers to deal with research malpractice and misconduct. Qualitative answers of the reviewers were very informative. We selected systematic reviews from four major medical journals and the Cochrane Library, which is considered the gold standard in terms of systematic reviewing. We can reasonably assume that the problems identified are at least as serious in other medical journals. Systematic reviews that were not identified as such in their titles were not included.
One of the first signatories of the Berlin Declaration on Open Access, the CNRS is deeply committed to open access, in particular through funding of the national HAL repository with 388,771 documents 5  and of the OpenEdition platform with 431 journals and 2,719 monographs in open access 6. Also, the CNRS supports national, European and international initiatives and projects in favour of open access and Open Science, with a clear preference for self-archiving of publications and data in open repositories (green road). One.
Majority opinion and practice A majority of respondents -50-70% -declares actual usage of the HAL repository (#26), including deposit of metadata (records, #27) and documents (full text, #28) and demands further development of the HAL services (#31). Between 65% and 70% of the respondents also demand that HAL should improve on the distinction between preprints (unpublished) and other items, i. e. published articles (#32), and should put open access management on the top of the wish list for new service developments (#84).
What about document supply? As mentioned above, the CNRS survey was not limited to open access but covered a large scale of information services and needs. Two-thirds of the respondents are satisfied with the digital resources (journals, monographs, databases…) available through the large disciplinary CNRS portals 10 even if many would like a unique gateway, more inter-disciplinary portals and also more specialised, domain-specific content. They are aware of open access and use all kinds of information freely available on the Internet. Many ask for further development and promotion of open access infrastructures. However they do not explicitly ask for document supply, and most of them do not rely on the CNRS Refdoc service 11. For them, document supply obviously remains "in a time warp (…) on the periphery of traditional STM publishing"  (Brown 2016, p.
ZdarZenia eksploatacyjne w elektrowniach jądrowych This paper presents the essential results of a study performed by the European Clearinghouse on Operational Experience Feedback, in cooperation with IRSN and GRS, aiming to analyse events where their direct or root cause was an inappropriate maintenance at nuclear power stations. The databases of IRSN, GRS, U. S. NRC and IAEA IRS were screened to select relevant events related to maintenance that took place in the period 2002-2013. The examination of the selected events resulted in their classification into nine categories or groups with sub-division in families and, if necessary, sub-families. In total 921 events were analysed. One of the event classifications performed was according to the type of maintenance (periodic, predictive, planned and corrective).
Introduction An in-depth analysis of Maintenance related Events has been carried out in the frame of the activities of the European Clearinghouse on Operational Experience Feedback (OEF) for Nuclear Power Plants (NPP)  [7]. This analysis updates and completes a previous study on Maintenance related Events published by the European Clearinghouse in 2009  [10] [11]. The updated analysis performed in 2015 covers events registered in 4 different databases for a much longer period of time. The events are reported in the IAEA-IRS database  [3] [4] , the US NRC LER database  [8] , the French national database SAPIDE  [12]  operated by IRSN and the German database VERA operated by GRS  [6] , and are related to the period 2002 -2013. Since the maintenance related events represent around 30% of the total number of events reported in a typical database it was necessary to establish appropriate criteria with the aim to select the most relevant events.
The number of selected events should be significant for a statistical analysis and, at the same time, a manageable number for an in-depth evaluation by the experts. With this in mind, the study was limited to NPP operational incidents which resulted directly (direct cause) from maintenance ac-sciENcE aNd tEchNology maintenance". It has to be noted that in the German event description included in the database there is no information whether the component was replaced preventively with or without abnormal behaviour. The data analysis shows that the essential reactor auxiliary systems and the electrical systems are the systems prone to be affected by maintenance failures. This could be explained by the fact that these systems are essential for the smooth operation of the plant, and their rate of allowed unavailability per year is among the lower rates of the tivities or where maintenance was a root cause of such incidents.
Methodology For gathering the experience from events related to maintenance at nuclear power plants, four databases were screened. IRSN and GRS analysed information from their respective databases, i. e. France and Germany, while JRC processed information from the IAEA IRS database and US NRC LER database. At the latest stage, JRC integrated all results. No event was counted twice for events reported to the IRS from US, France or Germany. The databases were firstly searched using specific searching tools (keywords and/or guidewords combined with logical operators) suitable for each database, yielding the first list of potentially relevant events. The event reports contained in this first list were reviewed individually to determine their pertinence for the study, thus obtaining a screened list of relevant events.
Data analysis The events are classified according to the type of maintenance as showed in Figure  2. Most of the periodic maintenance consists of servicing while the plant is under normal operation. The difference observed with the German database is just a reflection of a different maintenance philosophy. In fact, in Germany, all events with a replacement of components are assigned to "Planned Regarding the category "affected component", the valves and the electrical power components are the components most affected by week maintenance. This is in accordance with the results obtained in the analysis of most affected system. Taking into account that pumps is in the third place in the ranking of most affected component, it may be raised the idea that, apart from the electrical power components, the other most affected components are just those components more frequently subject to manoeuvring during operations and testing.
There is one feature common to the four databases: the maintenance technicians managed to improve and maintain a better Foreign Material Exclusion Zone, since failing to exclude foreign material has quite a low contribution; the same situation is encountered for the post-maintenance testing. The data analysis shows that there are two main corrective actions: changes in operating mode documents or procedures followed closely by repair or replacement. The corrective action "repair or replacement" was applied in a little less than half of the events. When linking the corrective actions with the root causes, the analysis shows that changes in maintenance documentation, program and personal training is a common response in the four database to correct any maintenance failure; at least two thirds of the corrective actions focused on three large administrative areas (changes in operating mode documents and procedures, changes in maintenance program and personal training).
Greasing non-compliance Equipment is lubricated with specific grease for each kind of equipment. However, a human error from maintenance actors could lead to a mixture of these greases and thus to an unknown reaction (e. g. loss of qualification). In order to avoid this, the recommendations are as following: To implement in-depth measures such as to ensure proper prep- sciENcE aNd tEchNology ries, families and sub-families are based on the preliminary results obtained for the four databases. In total 921 events were analysed. One of the event classifications performed was according to the type of maintenance (periodic, predictive, planned and corrective). The data analysis indicated that 47% of the events reported were related to periodic maintenance. The main affected components were "valves" (with 33% of the events), followed by "electric power components" (23%).
Sustainability of project output and especially of the maintenance and further development of software is of growing concern for the research community. In the personalized medicine project p-medicine solutions that address this sustainability problem were developed and discussed in a workshop. They involve a number of interrelated and mutually supportive measures including the creation of a service center, building modular software, using common data standards, mutual service exchange with a research infrastructure, Open Source and fee-based software provision, joint promotion and deployment of tools in a regulated, clinical trial situation. These ideas join a nascent literature seeking to understand how project output can be put into a sustainable environment and to suggest solutions that may be useful for academic projects in general.