Meeting the RoSE project team at UCSB

Today we met with Alan Liu, Rita Raley, Dana Solomon and Lindsay Thomas of the RoSE project at UCSB. RoSE stands for “research-oriented social environment” and, according to the project description, allows “tracking and integrating relations between authors and documents in a combined “social-document graph.” So authors and documents are equal nodes in a system, and there are different kinds of relationships between them. It’s “Facebook for the dead”, as Alan quipped, although the nodes in the system range from the long-dead (Aristotle) to the very much alive and kicking (William Gibson or Alan Liu himself). RoSE uses network graphs both as a visualization of the connections between nodes and simply as a means of navigating the database.

A network of relationships in the RoSE project

Unlike Facebook, the “edges” or connections between nodes are more nuanced than just “friends”. For instance, someone could be described as a “scholar of” Aristotle, or, more complicatedly, as a “lover of” or a “cousin of”.

Some of the possible relationships between entries in the RoSE project

The list of possible relationships is long. Scrolling down beyond the menu you see on the screen are further options, such as “enemy of” and many more. Alan and Rita noted that perhaps it was actually too simplistic to view a node as a single entity. Relationships evolve over time – even after the death of the author.

(Btw, that’s Dana Solomon lurking beside the projection in that photo – he’s just started working on a PhD on data visualization in the digital humanities, and I noticed lots of interesting links in his Twitter feed.)

Alan Liu presenting the RoSE project

Scott discussing the RoSE project at UCSB

One of the challenges of the project is the time involved in manually entering relationships. The database is seeded by metadata harvested from Project Gutenberg, YAGO, and the SNAC project, but this only provides a very thin framework because not a lot of relationships can be automatically read out of library metadata other than “X is the author of Y”. This provides a large number of nodes, but relationships between them are thin. Many nodes are singletons or just one relationship.

On top of that, RoSE allows groups to add a thick description on top of that, because people can manually add relationships. So there’s a top-down controlled vocabulary as well as a bottom up crowdsourced vocabulary.

There are a few examples of projects visualizing relationships between humanities data, such as KNALIJ (which needs to be pronounced “knowledge” in an American accent) which visualizes relationships between scientific medical publications. This works because the data is well-behaved and in a standardized format, unlike, say, electronic literature, or people. Projects like RoSE and the ELMCIP Knowledge Base have had to manually enter all the relationships that KNALIJ is able to automatically extract. It’s hard to see how such relationships could be automatically harvested, beyond the very thin framework that projects like SNAC can harvest.

RoSE is built on Ruby on Rails with Flash for the visualizations, and was coded in house by a collaboration between the English department and Media Arts and Technology at UCSB. The ELMCIP Knowledge Base is built in Drupal using modules that support extensive node-referencing.

A clear connection between both the RoSE project and the ELMCIP Knowledge base is our shared deep interest in how creative communities form, take shape and evolve, and how the connections and relationships between people, texts and activities are crucial for documenting and understanding this.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.