![\"Filter](\"https://blog.dblp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Screenshot-from-2026-09-15-14-29-26.png\")
New filter facet: \"refine by affiliation\"
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) - my old office at OMB - maintains a website that is used to shed light on both the federal regulatory and information collection development process. It's called reginfo.gov. The website provides basic data and information for analysis - by humans using a browser. There's no API and no straightforward way to scrape data using normal workflows. It would have been a valuable exercise for DOGE, or its OMB predecessor the USDS, to modernize reginfo.gov with a modern database and standard API for OIRA. But reginfo.gov is a sacred-cow there, and the forces of risk-aversion and workflow inertia have prevented it from becoming anything greater than a browser-based interface to OIRA data. And there is demand for expanded machine-access to reginfo.gov by a diverse set of stakeholders (including George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center per that repository). In light of this antiquated position and reluctance to change the site, I put together some tools in a github repository to help with machine-access called reginfo-tools.
\nI wrote reginfo-tools to make reginfo.gov more useful to those of us doing research, policy analysis, and work evaluating government-wide information policy and rulemaking processes. The tools let users query, scrape, and download metadata and documents from reginfo.gov across both the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requests and Executive Order 12866 regulatory review workflows and dockets. Unlike the George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center toolkit, it does not rely on the XML bulk data download for analysis as my repos is primarily a collection of two search and two download tools.
\nIn general, reginfo.gov runs on an old technstack maintained largely by one person at OIRA. There's no public API. The site relies on nested and often malformed HTML tables, fragile session states, hidden anti-forgery tokens, and document downloads triggered by JavaScript instead of standard links. In my own work, basic scraping kept failing against these quirks, so pulling together a comprehensive approach took considerable work. I ended up programmatically intercepting and passing hidden form tokens to preserve state through pagination, and using a hybrid of DOM parsing and regex to find files hidden behind the legacy frontend.
\nThere are four scripts so far, covering both halves of the site, plus a unified CLI. Both Gemini Pro and Claude Code helped quite a bit - but they required a lot of help with nuance of the site that I had stored in my institutional memory; I've noted where those tools come into play directly in the script comments.
\npra-icr-search.py maps to the PRA Search form on reginfo.gov. It handles form tokens and pagination, and includes a \"Reactive Chunker\" that slices a query into monthly blocks if it would otherwise exceed reginfo.gov's 1,000-result cap. For example, to pull every form discontinued government-wide during 2025:
\npython pra-icr-search.py dateType=DI startDate=01/01/2025 endDate=12/31/2025 --output 2025_disruptions.csv --delay 2\npra-icr-download.py takes an ICR reference number and downloads its attached documents into a named folder structure, handling duplicate filenames and inferring extensions when the server doesn't supply one. I use it like this to grab everything for a recent CDC collection:
\npython pra-icr-download.py 202601-0920-012 --both\neo-reg-search.py is the regulatory-review counterpart, mapping to the Search of Regulatory Review form for rules under EO 12866. It shares the same monthly chunker for large date ranges but the fields are slightly different because of nuances in database elements. Here's how I pull a year of EPA's concluded reviews:
\npython eo-reg-search.py agencyCode=2000 eoStatusCode=CD conclusionStartDate=01/01/2024 conclusionEndDate=12/31/2024 --output epa_2024_concluded.csv --delay 2\neo-reg-download.py takes a regulatory identification number (RIN) and pulls together everything reginfo.gov holds for it in a sensible directory tree on your local machine: View Rule snapshots across Unified Agenda cycles, RIN Data XML, review conclusion records, and EO 12866 meeting materials. Since the site requires specifying pending or concluded status, the script queries both automatically:
\npython eo-reg-download.py 2060-AW46 --all\nEach pair of search and download tools has a companion codebook, codebook.md and eo-review-codebook.md, documenting the agency and status codes I use to build queries as well as all the bizarre variable codings needed for lookup.
\nFor convenience more than anything else, I wrapped all four scripts under one helper function, reginfo-tools.py. This is useful so you don't have to remember which script does what. It's a thin dispatcher that executes the matching script as a subprocess with whatever arguments are passed by the user. I wrote this part with Claude Code, then tested and edited it myself.
python reginfo-tools.py icr-search agencyCode=1500 subAgencyCode=1545 icrStatus=AC --output irs_active_forms.csv --delay 2\nRunning python reginfo-tools.py --list prints the subcommand table, and --help after any subcommand passes through to that tool's own arguments.
You'll need Python 3.7 or later. The main dependency is BeautifulSoup, listed in requirements.txt:
\npip install -r requirements.txt\nI built this for my own use, but I'm sharing it in case it helps anyone else trying to get structured, historical data out of a site that wasn't built for that kind of access. Let's hope that this tool isn't needed in the near future and that OIRA gets over itself and joins the age of AI and machine-actionable data.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/gfv6w-qgk44","guid":"https://www.chrismarcum.com/marcum-blog/2026/09/21/introducing%20reginfo-tools","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"s2ake-axv12","summary":"The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) - my old office at OMB - maintains a website that is used to shed light on both the federal regulatory and information collection development process. It's called reginfo.gov. The website provides basic data and information for analysis - by humans using a browser. There's no API and no straightforward way to scrape data using normal workflows.","tags":["Government","Open Data","Civic Tech"],"title":"reginfo-tools: A Pseudo-API Command Line Interface for Accessing Regulatory Documents and Information Collection Requests","updated_at":1790006202,"url":"https://www.chrismarcum.com/marcum-blog/2026/09/21/introducing-reginfo-tools.html","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"J\u00e4ckel","given":"Florian"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d2883c5c-8e82-4bc0-a892-92a8b752c7d9","created":1763683200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A blog about the dblp computer science bibliography","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/dblp","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d2883c5c-8e82-4bc0-a892-92a8b752c7d9/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.dblp.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blog.dblp.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"dblp","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"blog.dblp.org","updated":1790003754,"use_api":false},"blog_name":"blog.dblp.org","blog_slug":"dblp","content_html":"Most scientific publications name the institutions their authors were affiliated with at the time of writing. The information is recorded alongside the author names, and it often sits in the metadata that dblp processes.
\nWe are happy to announce that this information is now properly represented in our data: research institutions have become proper entities in the dblp computer science bibliography. The affiliations that connect people and publications to those institutions are now recorded as data as well. In practice, this means five new things:
\nThis work is a main outcome of SmartER Affiliations, a joint project of Schloss Dagstuhl, GESIS \u2013 Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, and the Institute of Databases and Information Systems at Ulm University, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
\nBelow, we introduce the new features, explain how the data fits together, and give some numbers on coverage.
\nAn institution is an entity. It has an identity of its own, recorded under a dblp identifier that starts with inst/, together with its names, acronyms, external identifiers, and other data. This data is found on the institution's landing page (cf. the screenshot further down below), just as with other entities in dblp. Institutions exist independently of whether anyone is currently affiliated with them. dblp currently knows more than 10,000 institutions in 195 countries.
An affiliation is a link between entities. It says that some entity in dblp is connected to an institution. The relationship itself is the thing being recorded, and it carries its own metadata, such as the time span it covers and whether it is a person's current or a former affiliation.
\nIn dblp, that link comes in two variants:
\nPerson-based affiliations connect a person to an institution. These are recorded manually by dblp curators, which makes them deliberate and reviewed, but also far fewer than the automatically retrieved ones: about 256,000 affiliation statements for some 195,000 people (of about 4,2 million persons total). The large majority describe a person's current institution, and around 24,000 are marked as former affiliations. On author pages, they still appear as the free-text notes you may know from before, but in dblp's data they are now links to institution entities.
\nSignature-based affiliations connect a signature to an institution. A signature is the link between a publication and one of its authors, the concrete act of that person authoring that paper. Signature-based affiliations therefore express something much more specific: \"in this paper, this author gave this institution as their affiliation.\" These affiliations are retrieved automatically at scale, mainly by extracting and matching affiliation statements from publication metadata. About 60% of all signatures in dblp currently carry at least one signature-based affiliation.
\nThe most immediately visible change is that publication lists can now be filtered by affiliation. On the pages where this applies, you will find affiliations as a new facet next to the filters you already use, and it can be freely combined with them.
\nNew filter facet: \"refine by affiliation\"
This filter operates on signature-based affiliations, and what it matches depends on where you are. On an author page, refine by affiliation offers that person's own affiliations and filters by those alone, so you get the papers this author wrote while at that institution. Everywhere else, in search results and on tables of contents, refine by institution matches a publication if any of its authors gave that institution on that publication.
\nEither way, the result is a subset of the papers in this view that are known to have been written at the institution. Obviously, someone who has just moved there does not bring their earlier publications along with them.
\nWhat any of these filters can return is limited above all by whether affiliation data exists at signature level, and very often it does not. So you get the publications for which we currently have an affiliation statement that we were able to match with sufficient confidence, rather than everything an institution has published. The data is knowingly incomplete, and we treat it as work in progress that will keep improving. More on the limits of the data below.
\nEvery institution in dblp now has its own page. It collects what dblp knows about the institution and what the institution links to:
\ninst/11/687,Wherever possible, the page contains links to the institution's data records in other projects and services. The underlying institution data is kept in sync with ROR, so that changes there find their way into dblp as well.
\nInstitutions are also browsable by country, in the same way you browse the rest of dblp.
\n![\"\"](\"https://blog.dblp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Screenshot-from-2026-09-15-14-35-41-1024x327.png\")
Institution landing page \u2013 here: Schloss Dagstuhl
Institutions have also been added to dblp's search. You can look them up by their preferred name, by an alternative name, or by an acronym, and follow the result straight to the institution's landing page.
\n![\"Searching](\"https://blog.dblp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Screenshot-from-2026-09-15-14-39-35-1024x431.png\")
Searching for an institution \u2013 here: combined search
Two different kinds of data come together here: the affiliation statements of the publications, and the institutions they are matched against.
\nThe affiliation statements (i.e., where each author was based when working on the paper) mostly come from the data we receive from the publishers. A further source is OpenAlex.
\nOur main source for institution data is the Research Organization Registry (ROR). ROR is an open, community-maintained registry of research organizations, released under CC0. It provides persistent identifiers, name variants and acronyms, location information, and links to other identifier systems. Building on ROR means that institutions in dblp are identified in a way that can be joined with data from anyone else who uses ROR IDs \u2014 which by now is a large part of the scholarly metadata landscape.
\nThat said, we do not simply mirror ROR. We continue to curate institutions ourselves, because our requirements do not always match those of a general-purpose registry. Computer science has its own history of institutional mergers, renamings, and re-organisations. Some organisations that matter for our data are not (or not yet) in ROR. And matching thousands of messy affiliation strings to a registry inevitably produces cases that need a human decision. Where ROR and dblp differ, the dblp record reflects a curatorial choice we made on purpose. About four in five of our institutions carry a ROR ID; the rest are ones we maintain on our own.
\ndblp does not model faculties, departments, institutes, or research groups as entities of their own. Generally speaking, the university is the lowest level of granularity we model. An affiliation statement naming a specific chair at a specific institute of a specific faculty of a university becomes an affiliation with that university, although the full text of the statement is kept.
\nThis loses information that some users would like to have. However, sub-institutional units are unstable. They are founded, merged, renamed, and dissolved far more often than their parent organizations, and reconstructing that history retroactively for decades of publications is not realistic. They are also inconsistently reported: the same group may appear as a chair, an institute, a department, or nothing at all, depending on the publisher's template and the author's mood. And they are largely absent from the external registries we rely on for identifiers. So we draw the line at the level we can keep consistent across the whole database.
\nNot every institution is a university, of course. Companies, non-university research institutes, government labs and hospitals are modeled in the same way, and the same rule applies to them: we record the organization, not its individual divisions or labs.
\nThere are a few exceptions where an organization that is formally a part of a larger body is nevertheless modeled as its own institution; typically when it is a distinct legal or research entity with its own identity in ROR. As a rule of thumb, though, we model whole organizations rather than their parts.
\nAs announced in our post on the SPARQL query service, extending the dblp Knowledge Graph with institution entities and affiliation links was one of our declared next steps. Institutions and person-based affiliations are now part of the dblp KG, are included in our RDF dumps (starting October 2026), and are queryable at https://sparql.dblp.org. Signature-based affiliations will follow.
\nInstitutions are modeled as dblp:Institution, carrying their names, their ROR ID in dblp:ror, and their location. Person-based affiliations connect an author to an institution through dblp:affiliatedWith, with the details of a single affiliation, such as the time span it covers, reachable through dblp:hasAffiliation. The full set of new classes and properties is documented in the dblp RDF schema.
Because affiliations are links rather than attributes, the interesting queries are the ones that traverse them. For example, you can list the institutions with the most affiliated people in dblp:
\nPREFIX dblp: \nSELECT ?name (COUNT(DISTINCT ?pers) AS ?people) WHERE {\n ?pers dblp:affiliatedWith ?inst .\n ?inst dblp:primaryInstitutionName ?name .\n}\nGROUP BY ?name\nORDER BY DESC(?people)\nLIMIT 20 (Run this query on sparql.dblp.org)
\nInstitutions also carry their ROR ID in dblp:ror and a link to Wikidata in dblp:wikidata, so the data can be combined with any other source that uses those identifiers. Wikidata, for instance, knows when an institution was founded, which is something dblp does not record. The query below takes the 500 institutions with the most affiliated people in dblp and sorts them by their founding date:
PREFIX dblp: \nPREFIX wdt: \nSELECT ?name (year(xsd:dateTime(?inception)) as ?inceptionYear) WHERE {\n{\nSELECT ?wikiq ?name (COUNT(DISTINCT ?pers) AS ?people) WHERE {\n?inst a dblp:Institution ;\ndblp:primaryInstitutionName ?name ;\ndblp:wikidata ?wikiq .\n?pers dblp:affiliatedWith ?inst .\n}\nGROUP BY ?wikiq ?name\nORDER BY DESC(?people)\nLIMIT 500\n}\nSERVICE {\n?wikiq wdt:P571 ?inception .\n}\n}\nORDER BY ?inception (Run this query on sparql.dblp.org)
\nAs we noted when the query service was launched, federated queries can be slow, and the number of results exchanged between the two endpoints needs to be kept in check. That is what the inner query with its limit is for.
\nCoverage is uneven. About 60% of all signatures in dblp currently carry an affiliation, 18.2 million out of 30.3 million. For most of what we index, coverage is good. The largest publishers account for roughly two thirds of all signatures, and for those, coverage is typically above 70%. What pulls the average down is a small number of clearly identifiable gaps. By far the largest is arXiv: its publications account for 2.6 million signatures in dblp, and fewer than 2,000 of them currently carry an affiliation. We are actively working on closing that gap. A few smaller gaps exist elsewhere, mostly where affiliations are not part of the metadata we receive. Coverage also peaks for publications from the mid-2010s and declines for recent years, mostly because the affiliation data for recent publications has not been processed yet.
\nAutomatic extraction makes mistakes. Signature-based affiliations are machine-generated. Names are ambiguous, institutions get renamed, \"Cambridge\" is not one place, and multi-affiliation authors are common. We invest a lot of effort into matching and into feeding curator corrections back into the pipeline, but errors remain.
\nPlease do not build rankings out of this. The count of publications per institution in dblp says at least as much about the coverage of affiliations in dblp as it does about the institutions themselves. dblp's scope is computer science, its indexing decisions are editorial, and affiliation coverage is a moving target. The data works well for exploration, discovery, and disambiguation but it makes a poor basis for evaluating institutions, and we would ask you not to present it that way.
\nAffiliations are historical, i.e., a\u00a0signature-based affiliation records what a paper said at the time it was published. It is not a statement about where someone works today, and an author who moves does not take their earlier publications with them. Person-based affiliations work differently. They can carry a time span, and they distinguish a person's current affiliation from former ones. They are also manually curated, and therefore far fewer in number.
\nWrong affiliations and wrong institutions can be corrected like any other data error in dblp.
\nIf you notice a systematic problem \u2014 an institution that has been split into duplicates, a merger we have not caught up with, a matching error that affects a whole venue \u2014 telling us about the pattern is much more valuable than reporting individual cases. You can always reach the dblp team at dblp(at)dagstuhl.de. For questions and discussion about the knowledge graph and the SPARQL service, our GitHub Discussions forum is the better place.
\nThere are some things left to do, for example bringing signature-based affiliations into the knowledge graph. We will also use the new affiliation data in our own curation work, above all for author disambiguation.
\nWe are very interested in how you end up using this data: both because it helps us set priorities, and because affiliation data has a way of revealing use cases nobody anticipated.
\nThe work described in this post has been carried out as part of the project SmartER Affiliations: Enhancing Open Repositories through Harvesting and Extracting Affiliation Data as First-class Citizen, a cooperation of Schloss Dagstuhl \u2013 Leibniz Center for Informatics, GESIS \u2013 Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, and the Institute of Databases and Information Systems at Ulm University. The project is funded by a grant of the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the funding program \"e-Research Technologies\" (grant project number 515537520).
\nWe would also like to thank the ROR community for maintaining an open registry of research organizations, without which this feature would have looked very different, and much worse.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/ew782-kf260","guid":"https://blog.dblp.org/?p=929","image":"https://blog.dblp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Screenshot-from-2026-09-15-14-35-41-1024x327.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"e8dsd-hjk21","summary":"Most scientific publications name the institutions their authors were affiliated with at the time of writing. The information is recorded alongside the author names, and it often sits in the metadata that dblp processes.","tags":["Feature Spotlight","Affiliations","Institutions","Knowledge Graph"],"title":"Institutions as first-class citizens: introducing affiliations in dblp","updated_at":1790003968,"url":"https://blog.dblp.org/2026/09/21/institutions-as-first-class-citizens-introducing-affiliations-in-dblp/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Authors","given":"Sounding Out!"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Jennifer Lynn Stoever","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1528-7871"}],"community_id":"e7855922-6211-4622-873f-797c87c02fcb","created":1785110400,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"pushing sound studies into the red since 2009","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/soundstudiesblog","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/e7855922-6211-4622-873f-797c87c02fcb/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/","issn":"2333-0309","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"soundstudiesblog","status":"active","subfield":"1210","title":"Sounding Out!","updated":1789999200,"use_api":false},"blog_name":"Sounding Out!","blog_slug":"soundstudiesblog","content_html":"![\"A](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-8.png?w=1024\")
![\"\"](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-1.png?w=200\")
SO!\u00a0Amplifies. . .a highly-curated, rolling\u00a0mini-post series by which we editors hip you to cultural makers and organizations doing work we really really dig. \u00a0You're welcome!
\nNameless Sound is a Houston institution, currently celebrating 25 years of bringing free experiences of experimental music making to the local community. The organization, founded by trombone player/composer/improviser David Dove, started out as a small workshop in improvisation for teenagers at the MECA (Multicultural Education and Counseling through the Arts), an arts community center in Houston's 6th Ward. Dove realized through musical practice with his students that the opportunity for creativity was often missing in traditional musical education and that improvisation was, for him, the most immediate and inclusive way to collaboratively engage young people in creative music making. Despite widely varying musical expertise, the students were able to able to meaningfully collaborate with one another. Beginners were captivated and engaged, while students with more musical education were challenged and ready to experiment. Shortly after this realization, Dove became part of the Advisory Board of Diverse Works, an arts organization in Houston's museum district, he began organizing concerts with leading experimental musicians, inviting them to lead sessions of his kids' workshop at MECA.
\n![\"A](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/nameless-sound-houston.jpg?w=886\")
It was Houston's own Pauline Oliveros who encouraged Dove to formalize this residency model\u2013experimental musicians come to town, give a public performance followed by a community workshop for young people\u2013that would become the blueprint for Nameless Sound's work today. The organization actually began as a branch of the Pauline Oliveros Foundation in 2001 (and would come to be called the Deep Listening Institute Houston when Oliveros's organization took on that name). That year they brought 9 artists to Houston and started a ongoing campaign of improvisation workshops in public schools (known then as The Houston Tour).
\nIn 2005 Jo Ann Williams, art therapist and founder of ArtBridge Houston, invited DLI Houston to start giving workshops for children in some Houston homeless shelters. This was an important turning point for DLI Houston. It widened the age group that the organization worked with. It began a practice of facilitating workshops for people who previously had no experience playing music at all. Perhaps most importantly, Nameless Sound began to witness the potential for social-emotional learning in the improvisational process, and they began to understand how a secure framework for creative music making could also provide a safe-space for emotional vulnerability.
\nIn 2006, with the blessing of Oliveros, DLI Houston broke off from its parent organization and became Nameless Sound, a fully independent 501(c)3 non-profit. Over the past 20 years, Nameless Sound has continued to evolve. Its concert series has become known for a diverse range of international artists who represent the most important and influential names in the music, as well as the emerging cutting-edge.
\nThe series features commissions and world-premieres, as well as special projects that entail collaborations between visiting artists and local musicians. Site-specific events in some of Houston's most interesting art environments often bring in visiting audiences from outside of the city. Visiting artists have included Susie Ibarra, Damon Smith, Keiji Haino, Louis Moholo, Maja Ratkje, Cooper-Moore, Matana Roberts, and Hamid Drake. Occasional interventions bring ears to seemingly unlikely public listening spaces. And one of our ongoing projects outside of Houston brings audiences to The Hill of James Magee, an art installation on private land in the West Texas Chihuahuan Desert.
\n![\"a](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-7.png?w=776\")
One of Nameless Sound's most popular interventions is They, Who Sound, which started out as a series of casual sessions at local Houston bars. After some challenges and changes in location, Nameless Sound officially took on They, Who Sound in 2018 as a weekly series of concerts in partnership with Lawndale Art Center. For Lawndale, the series represented something of a return to roots, as in the 1980's, Lawndale's original location was the site for some of the most memorable experimental music and underground rock events in Houston. Sun Ra, Anthony Braxton, Pauline Oliveros, Cecil Taylor and the Art Ensemble of Chicago all performed there, as did Black Flag, The Minutemen and the Replacements.
\nFor Nameless Sound, They Who Sound was an opportunity to provide a stage and shed light on Houston's diverse, vibrant, and unique experimental music scene. It has endured as a meeting place for Houston listeners and experimental musicians, and as a lab for new developments. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine, Nameless Sound contined to innovate and serve the community, creating They, Who Sound Special Delivery. For a small fee, anyone can schedule a They, Who Sound musician to come to their home and perform a 10 minute piece of experimental music from a safe distance.
\nThey, Who Sound continues in concert with the Lawndale Art Center every Monday from 7:30 to 9:30pm (Doors open at 7pm). Coming up September 28th, 2026 Nameless Sound will host Emily Beisel/Lisa Cameron & Laura Dykes/Kodey Salda\u00f1a/Thomas Swindell. For videos of past performances and to subscribe to receive future updates, you can check out Nameless Sound's Youtube Page or follow on Vimeo.
\n![\"A](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-5.png?w=819\")
Nameless Sound remains committed to a vision of personal and community evolution supported by the practices of creative music. Creative music improvisation provides a unique opportunity to cultivate group awareness, self-awareness and healthy vulnerability, with potential outcomes of knowledge exchange, creative work, play and healing. The skills developed through musical improvisation emphasize listening, creativity, spontaneity, dialogue and self-expression. There are free ongoing workshops through September 2026 and more to be announced.
\nOther upcoming events for Nameless Sound to close out 2026:
\nNameless Sound is currently in Fall Fundraising mode, with an anonymous donor matching every gift up to 8,000 dollars through TODAY, September 21. Here's to 25 more years of Nameless Sound with ongoing support from local and global sound communities!
\n![\"\"](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-6.png?w=1024\")
\u2014
\n![\"This](\"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image.png\")
REWIND!\u00a0. . .If you liked this post, you may also dig:
\nSO!\u00a0Amplifies: Immigrants Wake America Podcast and the Work of Engaged Digital\u00a0Humanities
\n\nSO! Amplifies: Die Jim Crow Record Label
\nSO! Amplifies: Wu Tsang's Anthem\u00a0(2021)
\nSO! Amplifies: Carleton Gholz and the Detroit Sound\u00a0Conservancy
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/k0be4-s6s31","guid":"http://soundstudiesblog.com/?p=29385","image":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-8.png?w=1024","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"db489-99p35","summary":" SO! Amplifies. . .a highly-curated, rolling mini-post series by which we editors hip you to cultural makers and organizations doing work we really really dig. You're welcome! Nameless Sound is a Houston institution, currently celebrating 25 years of bringing free experiences of experimental music making to the local community.","tags":["Children's Issues","Civic Engagement","Community Organizer","Curation","Improvisation"],"title":"SO! Amplifies: Nameless Sound","updated_at":1789999521,"url":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/2026/09/21/so-amplifies-nameless-sound/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02twcfp32","name":"Crossref"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Ofiesh","given":"Lucy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5169-9796"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Crossref Staff"}],"community_id":"093ada45-3a02-4007-b8b6-be28f221e01d","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content in Blog on Crossref","doi":"https://doi.org/10.64000/crossref","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/093ada45-3a02-4007-b8b6-be28f221e01d/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/feed.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.64000","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"crossref","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"Crossref Blog","updated":1789948800,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Crossref Blog","blog_slug":"crossref","content_html":"On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I'm pleased to share the slate of candidates for the 2026 board election. Every active member organisation is invited to submit a ballot to elect the incoming board class.
\nEach year we do an open call for board interest. This year, the Nominating Committee received 55 submissions from members worldwide to fill seven open board seats.
\nWe have one large member seat and six small member seats open for election in 2026. We maintain a balanced board of eight large member seats and eight small member seats. Size is determined based on the organisation's membership tier (small members fall in the $0-$550 tiers and large members in the $600-$50,000 tiers).
\nWe were pleased to see the diversity in candidates, with applicants from 29 countries. The committee was keen to prepare a diverse slate of organization types, individual skills and perspectives, and global representation.
\nIf your organization is a voting member in good standing as of September 5th, 2026, you are eligible to vote.
\nThe voting contact for your organization will receive a ballot from eBallot, a third-party election platform. You should receive it on Monday, 21st September, and you will have until 12:00 UTC on 22nd October to submit your ballot.
\nThe election results will be announced at the Crossref2026 online meeting on 22nd October, 2026.
\nSpecial thanks to the committee: Nick Lindsay of MIT Press, Oscar Donde of Pan Africa Science Journal, Shaharima Parvin of East West University, Nicolas Mejia Torres of Universidad de la Sabana, and Amanda Ward of Taylor & Francis for the time they dedicated to reviewing the expressions of interest and participating in committee meetings.
\nIf you have any questions about our election process, please contact me.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.64000/y6yaj-5z881","guid":"https://doi.org/10.64000/y6yaj-5z881","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"63t4e-9k661","summary":"On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I'm pleased to share the slate of candidates for the 2026 board election. Every active member organisation is invited to submit a ballot to elect the incoming board class. Each year we do an open call for board interest.","tags":["Annual Meeting","Board","Crossref","Elections","Governance"],"title":"2026 board election slate","updated_at":1789998905,"url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/2026-board-election-slate/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Adapt Research"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2","created":1753833600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"As we build our world we build our minds","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/adaptresearchwriting","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"adaptresearchwriting","status":"active","subfield":"2306","title":"Adapt Research Ltd","updated":1789998003,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Adapt Research Ltd","blog_slug":"adaptresearchwriting","content_html":"(In-depth reporting 15-20min read)
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image.jpg?w=452\")
TLDR/Summary
\nIntroduction
\nLast week I attended the Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk (CCCR 2026), hosted by the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at Magdalene College. Congratulations and thanks to Jess Bland, Sonja Amadae and the whole CSER team for another excellent event. Global risk research is fragmented across disciplines and institutions, and CSER's steady work in convening it is a public good the rest of us rely on. Few other meetings put nuclear strategists, pandemic epidemiologists and AI researchers in the same room.
\nI wrote up the 2024 conference largely as a survey of the discussions. This time I'm a bit more critical of omissions and lost opportunities. The theme was governance, so I apply a simple test: what problems were identified, what solutions were proposed, and what was missing. Noting that I am a co-author on four papers behind two of the posters presented at the conference (including the excellent poster by Florian Ulrich Jehn (see below) that was runner up for 'Best Poster'). In the discussion that follows I'll also be drawing on arguments from a new paper I've written with Nick Wilson, which provides a formal definition of the \"metacrisis\", and explains why known solutions to global risk so rarely succeed.
\nPre-conference Keynote: Max Tegmark on \"A Better Path for AI\"
\nOn the evening before the conference proper, Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute (the group behind the 2023 AI \"pause\" letter and films such as Artificial Escalation), gave a keynote by Zoom. He was unexpectedly optimistic.
\nAI risk has gone mainstream, he argued. Literally the previous day, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon had shared a stage in Washington to call for curbs on AI, and the Pro-Human AI Declaration is gathering signatures. Tegmark's case was for trustworthy, verifiable \"tool AI\" in place of AGI and he introduced a theory of verification proof. Systems can be highly autonomous, highly general or highly capable, and combining any two of these gives us useful tools. What we should not build is the combination of all three.
\nI was less sanguine. Calls for regulation are rising, but US President Donald Trump insists that the only guardrail needed is a \"smart president\". The unanswered audience questions in the Zoom chat clustered on enforcement: not how do you build aligned AI, but how do you stop the other kind of AI being built when it is more profitable?
\nFormer US President Barack Obama gave a coincident nuanced take on the day of the CSER conference. This is clearly an issue for our times, though I think that a topic often neglected in discussion of AI risk or AI solutions is the issue of physical resources. Minerals prices are rising, finds are becoming smaller and harder to extract, and geopolitical turmoil creates conditions for piracy and destruction of production capacity. I suspect all this will constrain what is possible, and its price, and catalyse a lot more conflict, a point I return to below.
\nNuclear war and game theory: Sonja Amadae on geopolitics in 2026
\nThursday opened with Professor Sonja Amadae, Director of CSER. Not enough people are worried about nuclear war, she observed, despite a hot war in Europe and other overt conflicts. Arms control has lapsed, nuclear spending favours preparing for war over reducing its risk by roughly 40 to 1, and doctrines that reject the nuclear taboo are resurgent.
\nA central tension turns on how states frame the security dilemma. In a prisoner's dilemma defection dominates. In a stag hunt mutual cooperation is best for everyone, and the only problem is trust. The audience was encouraged to participate in such a game. In pairs, each of us privately ranked the four outcomes of a two-player nuclear game, talked to try to infer our counterpart's ranking, and made a single move.
\nTwo things became clear. If you are confident of your opponent's worldview, coordination is easy; the danger lies in misreading it. But a great deal also turns on the probability of catastrophe attached to mutual arms race (defection, defection) outcomes. How this is rated determines the expected value of defection versus a subjugation outcome if a cooperative move is denied (cooperate, defect).
\nAmadae's closing question is the right one: how do we turn geopolitical prisoner's dilemmas into stag hunts? You do not persuade players to be nicer; you change the payoffs so that defection stops winning, as verified arms control did in the late 1980s. That idea, that governance must reshape what the relevant environment rewards, runs through the rest of this post and our new preprint providing an evolutionary analysis of the \"metacrisis\".
\nNuclear risk has not gone away (Panel discussion)
\nMany catastrophic risk programmes now give most prominence to AI risk. CCCR 2026 gave nuclear war a plenary, a panel and a cluster of lightning talks. This is justified given the risk seems to have been rising, and it is one of the most plausible routes by which AI could actually produce a global catastrophe. Demetrius Floudas noted in his lightning talk that 2026 is the first year since 1972 without a single nuclear arms control treaty in force. Furthermore, the lesson of the Iran war is that a state can be punished for being close to a bomb, which incentivises secretly making one, and announcing later, the only way to guarantee safety.
\nThe panel made three key points:
\nInternational governance is collapsing. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni (University of Cambridge) noted that institutions turn one-shot games into repeated ones, yet the \"non-proliferation regime complex\" is fragmenting with renewed proliferation, institutional paralysis and a funding crisis at the International Atomic Energy Agency. No single new treaty will fix this and the challenge is to manage a complex system of nuclear states, with far more investment in verification.
\nNuclear winter is deeply uncertain, and war plans ignore it. Madeline Berzak (University of Chicago Existential Risk Laboratory) reported her new work. Nuclear winter depends on firestorms that loft soot into the stratosphere, which depend on what is targeted and what burns. Yet canonical models still lean on Hiroshima: a small bomb over a low-rise wooden city. Modern cities sprawl, rise higher and are full of plastics that yield two to three times the soot of wood. She observed that no targeting plan has ever accounted for the risk of nuclear winter.
\nUnilateral choices can cut risk without sacrificing security. James Acton (Carnegie Endowment) described a risk problem of entanglement, for example the same satellites and command-and-control systems serve conventional and nuclear operations, so an attack on them in a conventional war could look like the opening of a nuclear one. States need not wait for cooperation. Separating nuclear from conventional command and control, restraint in targeting, and care about where AI is used all reduce total risk, and each can be done independently, without suffering strategic setback.
\nAn omission in the nuclear war panel discussion surprised me: nobody mentioned the UN's Independent Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War, the first UN study of its kind since 1988, which reports in 2027. Nick Wilson and I will present our work on nuclear war vulnerability and resilience options to the panel's regional meeting in Bangkok on 21 October.
\nAI and the information ecosystem (Panel discussion)
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-1.jpg?w=301\")
The AI panel, chaired by Alexandru Marcoci (CSER), skipped speculation on superintelligence and asked how AI is impacting the information environment now. Sam Stockwell (Alan Turing Institute) brought evidence through his team's incident repository which has logged some 60 crisis events in which AI degraded the information environment, mostly through fabricated \"evidence\" from the scene of real world events.
\nMoira Nicolson (UK Cabinet Office) showed how this reaches government. Social media is a distracting megaphone for a small minority, so MPs systematically underestimate public support for issues like climate policy.
\nGiulio Corsi (Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence) explained why it will get worse. At present most AI \"slop\" never wins attention, but agent swarms can: they coordinate, persist, game the early-engagement signals that feeds use for ranking, and hold conversations, which move people where static content does not.
\nThe panel indicated that remedies will need to focus on source labelling (through provenance standards such as C2PA), structures that make claims meet pushback rather than echo, and undercutting the monetisation of inflammatory content.
\nI agree with all of this. Though I have agreed with it for nine years. In December 2017 I gave a conference talk arguing that AI-driven content targeting threatened democracy, freedom, and free will. In 2018 I blogged at length that cultural evolutionary processes explain how information spreads according to three things individual biases assess (content, source and frequency) and that \"all three of these key features can easily be manipulated, at scale, and with personalization\". I proposed \"healthy content\" labelling akin to food labels, cryptographic verification of media (which is what C2PA now attempts), and outlawing the impersonation of humans. The panel's three talks map onto that triad.
\nEven back then I was not breaking ground, as my research had drawn on the evidence and recommendations of others.
\nSo the question I most wanted answered was not addressed. Given these problems were staring us in the face a decade ago, why has almost nothing structural happened, and why expect anything different now, moving forward? The problem has been diagnosed repeatedly. Where were the panel's concrete policy proposals and pathways to implementation, with a plan to overcome the barriers and pushback, including the defection of agents in the game playing an outlaw strategy for personal gain at cost to cooperative human systems?
\nDigital media platforms are selected for engagement, and engagement rewards emotive, tribal and familiar content over accurate content. The actors who profit are the ones who would have to change, the harm is diffuse and deferred, and we reach for fixes that change what people know (media literacy, fact-checking) rather than what the system rewards, this is a 'selection environment' problem, and a problem that requires an evolutionary governance lens.
\nMy 2018 argument in one sentence was that cheap, personalized, AI-enabled deception would break the connection between what society believes and what is actually true; and because accurate collective beliefs are necessary for solving every other major problem, securing the information environment should be treated as a high-priority form of global catastrophic-risk mitigation. At the time I ranked action to mitigate degradation of the information climate as more of a priority than action on the actual climate, since success in the latter depends on success in the former.
\nBut there is a deep loss in the dynamics underway. Faithful transmission of adaptive knowledge, with error correction, is a cumulative cultural achievement. Ritual, religion, apprenticeship, editorial gatekeeping and peer review all functioned, whatever else they did, as fidelity checks on the information environment. We have swept many aside in two decades without asking why they evolved or understanding the importance of their function. Move fast and break things is an information free-for-all and is not conducive to cumulative adaptation, the process which is humanity's superpower.
\nI call the result cognitive niche destruction: erosion of the shared map of reality on which every other risk response depends. The panel's example of catastrophe was a faked general announcing escalation. The slow version worries me more: leaders misreading the public, year after year, while climate action, or an understanding of the risk, and the systemic stresses humanity faces, stalls.
\nPandemics: societal problems with biological triggers (Panel discussion)
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-1-1.jpg?w=410\")
Friday's panel on the future of pandemic preparedness, chaired by Charlotte Hammer (CSER), shirked a discussion of pathogens and medical countermeasures, and that was exactly the point.
\nPhilip AbdelMalik (WHO) put it best: pandemics are fundamentally societal problems with biological triggers. The hard part is making response decisions under uncertainty. Mika Salminen (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) spoke from the decision-maker's chair noting that infectious disease (and other) experts are expert in one domain, but a decision-maker must weigh all the domains and decide. Katharina Lauer (University of Duisburg-Essen) observed that most people assume AI's pandemic threat is creation of a worse pathogen. But preparedness is mostly about gathering information, coordinating decisions and effecting a response, and those are what AI can disrupt (see the information ecosystem discussion above).
\nIn discussion, the panel noted that when prevention succeeds nobody notices, and institutions can be degraded precisely because they worked silently, so success needs to be advertised. On AI-enabled bioweapons the panel was cautious: much of the alarm comes from organisations with a commercial interest in AI's power, and designing an agent is a long way from building and delivering one. Pandemics that kill billions are unlikely, they argued, because extreme-mortality pathogens tend to be self-limiting.
\nThe most important remark concerned political leaders, who must be able to admit that the evidence has changed, or that they were wrong, and change course. Much harm has been and is done by dogmatic or ideological adherence to a strategy. This is a structural problem, not a personal one. Today's political discourse treats updating as weakness (the \"U-turn\", the \"flip-flop\"), so leaders are selected for doubling down and flawed information keeps propagating. Another 'selection environment' problem. A practical response could be to decide in advance, and publicly, which signals would trigger a change of strategy, so that changing course means executing the plan rather than confessing failure.
\nClimate: featuring governance proposals (Panel discussion)
\nThe theme of the conference was \"governance challenges shaping tomorrow's world\" and to be honest by Friday afternoon I had begun to wonder where the governance proposals were. This panel supplied some, and it was the clearest session of the conference.
\nElena Kavanagh (University College Cork) used the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) risk to show how we fail to govern tipping points. Depending on which study is reported, collapse is anywhere from 0 to 100% likely: an \"uncertainty trap\" in which unresolved signals justify inaction. Institutions are incremental by design, and none operates at the scale of the tipping point. Crises and wars have historically driven institutional innovation. She asked if scientific foresight could do that work before the shock? Her answer repurposes existing institutions across three phases (see Figure): prevention, which works only before a threshold is crossed; impact governance, which must begin before crossing tipping points; and stabilisation afterwards.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-2-1.jpg?w=433\")
Kennedy Mbeva (CSER) argued that climate risk is a governance failure, and that \"common but differentiated responsibility\" is quietly becoming common but shifted responsibility. The Paris Climate Agreement won participation by weakening differentiation, leaving new burdens without the means of implementation, while decarbonisation itself exports harm through mineral extraction. He invoked Thomas Hale's \"catalytic cooperation\": cooperation built by first-movers who change the costs and benefits for everyone else.
\nDante McGrath (University of Cambridge) treated solar radiation modification (SRM), as \"a stress test for global governance in the age of overshoot\". Exceeding 1.5\u00b0C is now inevitable, and carbon removal is far short of what is needed. SRM is \"a bad idea whose time has come\". But it fights the fever without curing the infection, redistributes risk regionally creating winners and losers, and threatens termination shock. He set out four futures: no SRM; multilateral SRM (legitimate but slow); minilateral SRM (faster but less legitimate); and rogue deployment. Governance must be built step by step, from research to deployment. His summary of the carbon problem: \"Reduce, Remove, (Reflect?)\".
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-2.jpg?w=392\")
In discussion, the distinction between treaty negotiation and treaty implementation stood out: we agree, then fail to deliver. An unimplemented treaty changes nothing that the world actually rewards or punishes. And African leaders lack access to African research on SRM, because nobody funds it.
\nPosters and lightning talks
\nWith thirty-odd posters I can only be selective, and I have favoured those offering something a government could use.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image.jpeg?w=452\")
Governing vulnerability. UCL's branch of the Horizon Europe AGILE programme, another branch of which I encountered in Alicante this year, distilled 41 interviews with senior resilience experts into recurrent failure modes. Mhari Gordon told us of short political cycles, accountability gaps, \"disaster amnesia\", just-in-time brittleness, and centralised command that slows local action. The team's conclusion was that high-impact, low-probability crises result from a failure to understand and address systemic vulnerabilities, not simply failures of prediction. Their levers include no-regret capabilities, safe worst-case assessments, unfamiliar exercises and cross-border preparedness. This was a refreshing systems-focused rather than hazard-focused vulnerability take.
\nMiddle powers and citizens. Mariana Beselga asked how middle powers can turn presence into leverage over frontier AI. Across six countries and four governance processes, participation was near universal but established coordination rare. The only process with a documented effect on developer behaviour was the Hiroshima AI Process, through its OECD reporting framework. Leverage comes from converting commitments into instruments located where behaviour can change, and measuring the result. Giuseppe Dal Pr\u00e1 presented the first Odyssean Process on AI, which combines expert elicitation, decision-making under deep uncertainty and citizen deliberation.
\nResilience and food. Florian Jehn presented No Place to Hide?, on which I am a co-author. Four modifiable factors impact regional resilience to global catastrophe: democracy, decentralisation, preparedness and food system resilience. Trends are heading the wrong way on all four. Alongside it, Madeline Berzak's XLab team revisited nuclear civil defence in \"With More Than Shovels\". Some argue that civil defence might perversely raise the probability of war if it looks like first-strike preparation, but measures that are invisible to adversary planning and protect recovery capacity escape that paradox. Agricultural readiness looks positive with the authors' calculations finding that each $1 to $20,000 in preparation investment could save a life as well as benefit pandemic, volcanic winter and climate disaster scenarios.
\nAlso notable. Catherine Diyakonov's poster on coercive diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian war, voted best poster by attendees, showed how Russia used gas and Black Sea grain as leverage short of force. And Nick Wilson presented our own Covid-19 work, drawing on three papers we've written analysing excess mortality in the pandemic (click for video of Nick's talk).
\nReflections: existential catastrophe is unlikely, \"mere\" catastrophe is not
\nThe host of CCCR 2026 was the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, yet across three days almost nobody argued that humanity faces extinction. The field has quietly migrated from existential to catastrophic risk, and I think rightly. Even the most pessimistic nuclear winter models leave billions dead, not everyone. The most lethal pandemics would likely be self-limiting (following potentially catastrophic destruction). Humans have survived radical climate shifts before, because we are dispersed across diverse niches, though many individual human groups and civilisations have certainly perished. And nobody articulated a pathway from AI to extinction that does not run through the pathway of one of the other catastrophic risks.
\nCatastrophe is another matter. Work such as the Cascade Institute's Polycrisis CORE model describes a world system whose plausible trajectories converge on basins of decline. The conference's own evidence points the same way. No nuclear arms control treaty is in force. Emissions have risen since the Paris Agreement. There is still no binding regulation of frontier AI. The information ecosystem has degraded for a decade in ways that were foreseen.
\nSober risk analysis has to accept that if we could not act on these across ten or thirty years, the reasonable expectation is that we will not act in time now. A serious global catastrophe this century should be the planning assumption, not the tail.
\nDid the conference give us governance? To some degree. Our own research across the last decade suggests that governing global catastrophic risk needs seven things:
\nThe conference covered vulnerability, exercises, deliberation and coalitions well. Almost nobody addressed who, in any given country, is actually accountable for these problems. But I want to draw attention to two further gaps.
\nResources. Every future discussed, from abundant tool AI to decarbonisation or SRM at scale, assumes material and energy availability that may not be realistic. A recent paper in Resources Policy finds that the AI buildout is an infrastructure materials story rather than a semiconductor materials story. Data centre copper demand, mostly for grid reinforcement, rises from about 2% of global refined output in 2025 to 6.5% by 2030, roughly the annual consumption of the United States. Copper hit a record near US$14,800 a tonne in May. AI deploys in months, while mine openings take decades and are getting deeper and smaller.
\nAs Nate Hagens argued in his \"superorganism\" paper, the global economy behaves like an energy-hungry organism that must keep growing, and depletion steadily raises the energy cost of extracting what remains.
\n![\"\"](\"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-3.jpg?w=361\")
This bears on the politics of AI, renewables and sustainable transitions, and various high compute intensity solutions to information pollution too. Global growth is already constrained by frictions on liquid fuel, energy and material supply, growing worse through 2026 (Ukraine, Russia, Hormuz, Red Sea) in ways that have yet to fully hit economies.
\nAI is seen as the way to sustain growth, which helps explain Washington's resistance to regulation. My view is that the same frictions will constrain AI. The more likely catastrophe is not runaway superintelligence but a flattening and then decline in growth, with conflict over what is left. Resource limits are a handbrake on the worst AI futures, but also on the solutions. None of these global system stresses and potential associated cascading catastrophes featured much at the conference.
\nFood system. The conference was organised by hazard, not by the systems those hazards would break, which is how groups such as the Cascade Institute and the Accelerator for Systemic Risk Assessment (ASRA) approach global risk. So the system through which most catastrophes would actually kill people, namely food, barely appeared (there were a few exceptions, but it deserves a panel). The omission was striking given the venue: two weeks earlier the UK's Environment Secretary had advised households to keep food stores at home, ahead of what the Met Office expects to be the largest El Ni\u00f1o since the 19th century (cynics might argue this call was a way to prepare against Russian hacking of logistics systems without scaring the public).
\nMy country, New Zealand's, version of the problem is complacency: we export food, but it does not follow that we are food secure, because production depends on imported diesel, fertiliser, seeds and parts and produces a monoyield of milk products. Our research shows New Zealand could feed itself through even a severe global catastrophe, but only with prior planning for fuel, crop mix and distribution.
\nWhy has so little worked to mitigate the risk of global catastrophe? The conference said much about what is going wrong, and less about why known solutions are not adopted. Our new paper defining a \"meta-crisis\" argues that institutions, technologies and norms evolve under selection pressures that reward what succeeds locally and immediately.
\nWe see platforms selected for engagement, states for relative advantage, firms for extraction, politicians for never changing course. Meanwhile the conditions that let risk-reducing adaptations accumulate (variation, modularity, a stable selective environment, faithful transmission of what works, and suppression of those who gain by defecting) are degrading together.
\nAppeals to the good sense of individual actors, through rational plans, and moral arguments cannot fix this. Changing what the environment rewards, and protecting the mechanisms that contain defection, can. The Montreal Protocol and verified arms control did exactly that. In our paper we diagnose the ultimate not merely proximate problem, and recommend the actual governance approaches that are needed to address global catastrophe risk.
\nLessons for moving forward
\nI left Cambridge with little hope that prevention alone will succeed in the face of its abject failure to date.
\nI have more conviction that the field's next task is to explain why this is so, and with that wisdom to build resilience to the coming outcomes where building is still possible.
\nThanks again to CSER for starting that conversation.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/1yq1c-htc15","guid":"http://adaptresearchwriting.com/?p=7947","image":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image.jpg?w=452","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"zsshv-g6j24","summary":"(In-depth reporting 15-20min read) TLDR/Summary The Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk (17\u201318 September 2026) took the governance challenges shaping tomorrow's world as its theme , across AI, nuclear weapons, the information ecosystem, pandemics and climate. Congratulations to the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) on another excellent event.","title":"Lessons from the Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk 2026","updated_at":1789998161,"url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/2026/09/21/lessons-from-the-cambridge-conference-on-catastrophic-risk-2026/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/05a28rw58","name":"ETH Zurich"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Rutz","given":"Adriano","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-9902"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Adriano Rutz","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-9902"}],"community_id":"9d85a476-b411-4d80-89d5-500bb0f3750d","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Personal website of Adriano Rutz","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/adafede","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/9d85a476-b411-4d80-89d5-500bb0f3750d/logo","feed_format":"application/feed+json","feed_url":"https://adafede.github.io/posts.json","filter":null,"generator":"Other","home_page_url":"https://adafede.github.io","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"adafede","status":"active","subfield":"1312","title":"Adriano Rutz","updated":1789916794,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Adriano Rutz","blog_slug":"adafede","content_html":"I have finally opened a Posts section on my website! Every post should now automatically get a DOI.
This is something I have wanted to do for a long time, largely inspired by the tireless and consistent example set by Egon Willighagen (Willighagen 2024b, 2024a, 2025).
\nIt was today's post of (Fenner 2025) that finally motivated me to look into it again. That led me down a productive rabbit hole to set up Rogue Scholar: first landing on (Csefalvay 2023)'s excellent guide, and then (Fruehwald 2025)'s clear write-up, both of which made the process of integrating Rogue Scholar into a Quarto-based site surprisingly smooth.
\nAll the changes are documented in the following commit:
\nhttps://github.com/Adafede/adafede.github.io/commit/bc2dfe6f
\nIf you care about attribution, long-term archiving, DOIs and metadata, I highly recommend looking into Rogue Scholar.
\nEdit (1): I realized that integrating CiTO could be a significant enhancement. With some effort (and thanks again to Egon), I managed to implement a working solution for the HTML and PDF outputs, see (Willighagen 2023). However, the solution for the XML feed still feels suboptimal.
\nEdit (2): After some help from Egon and Martin, I could improve my feed with correct CiTO annotations and their cool custom json feed, see: https://adafede.github.io/posts.json!
\n@online{rutz2025,\n author = {{Adriano Rutz}},\n title = {Open {Science} {Upgrade:} {Adding} {Blog} {Posts} to My\n {Website} and {Linking} to {Rogue} {Scholar}},\n date = {2025-08-04},\n url = {https://adafede.github.io/posts/2025-08-04_rogue_scholar.html},\n doi = {10.59350/yckwd-9vm79},\n langid = {en}\n}\nFive years ago, LOTUS (Rutz et al. 2022) started as a small attempt to cultivate the flow of chemical knowledge, in the same way we study how metabolites flow through living systems, rather than to build yet another database.
\nThe idea was simple. Natural products data should be open, structured, reusable, and belong to everyone.
\nLike many community-driven efforts, LOTUS had bursts of activity, long pauses, and years of invisible maintenance. From the outside, silence can look like disappearance. From the inside, it usually means people are still doing the work; slowly, carefully, and often without announcements.
\nThe early focus of LOTUS was necessarily inward: assembling data, cleaning records, releasing versions. We built a website, curated entries, and archived releases.
\nBut we slowly realized something uncomfortable: data stored in a repository, even a good one, does not automatically live.
\nArchiving on Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/communities/the-lotus-initiative) was the right thing to do, but archived data is mostly silent data. It waits to be discovered, and versioning remains labor-intensive.
\nWhat we really needed were entry points where people already were.
\nWikipedia , Wikidata , and Scholia building on top of it are not dissemination platforms in the classical sense. They are circulatory systems. They persist because communities maintain them.
\nThe Scholia Chemistry preprint (Willighagen et al. 2025) co-authored with Egon , Denise , Daniel , and Finn belongs to this continuity. It does not introduce a new platform. It offers a lens for communities to see what they already collectively know.
\n\n\nKnowledge needs channels, not just reservoirs.
\n
One important step was enabling Wikipedia articles and infoboxes to directly access found in taxon (P703) relationships from Wikidata in an efficient way.
\nThis sounds like a small technical detail. It is not.
\nThe idea had circulated quietly for years, in hallway conversations, chats, and conferences. I also mentioned it during the WikiCite 2025 conference last August, but it took time before conditions were right. Infrastructure work rarely happens on schedule. It almost never happens on stage. It happens in version histories, talk pages, and tiny edits that fix one Lua bug, enabling thousands of articles to improve forever.
\nOnce data is in Wikidata, it can flow into thousands of chemical articles, in dozens of languages, without duplication or translation overhead. It becomes visible to non-experts, students, and readers who will never see a database interface. This is how open data becomes public knowledge.
\nThese modules are now available on multiple Wikipedias:
\nIf you speak another language, feel free to copy them and increase their use.
\nInitially, I tried to reuse existing modules, and quickly learned why module reuse across Wikipedias is famously difficult. Each wiki evolves its own ecosystem of dependencies, conventions, and technical debt. So the modules were written fully contained, independent of language-specific infrastructure. Only lines that need to be changed are the language-specific translations at the top of the module, trying to follow 18n.
\nThese modules are not a new website or a new interface. They are simply better plumbing.
\n![](\"https://adafede.github.io/images/screenshots/screenshot_p703_module.png\"/)
By default, only 5 organisms are shown, keeping the text clean and readable. But the magic is in how the module handles the rest: each taxon links to its Wikipedia article, and if no article exists in the current language, the module gracefully redirects to an equivalent page in another wiki. A beautiful example of this is war for Quassia africana.
\n\nNot everyone wants to learn SPARQL.
\n
I have heard this sentiment countless times. Regardless of personal preferences, if we want the data to truly live, it must reach as many people as possible.
\nSmall tools like the LOTUS Wikidata Explorer help lower that barrier. It is imperfect. It is still growing. But it already allows chemists, curators, and students to access and export data in formats they can actually use.
\nThe principle is simple: knowledge only flows when it reaches people. The data must be seen, explored, and reused. Only then does it fulfill its purpose.
\n![](\"https://adafede.github.io/images/screenshots/screenshot_lotus_wikidata_explorer.png\"/)
On a more technical note, the LOTUS Wikidata Explorer leverages the powerful IDSM endpoint (Galgonek and Vondr\u00e1\u0161ek 2021), which allows for chemical similarity searches thanks to Sachem (Kratochv\u00edl et al. 2018). Its speed for large-scale queries could never have been reached without QLever (Bast and Buchhold 2017), and chemical depictions come from CDK Depict.
\nIt returns structured metadata for traceability and reproducibility, together with hashes that uniquely identify the query and its results. It can be queried programmatically via simple API calls, for example ?taxon=Gentianaceae or ?smiles=c1ccccc1&formula_filter=true&f_state=required. It works directly in the browser without requiring heavy dependencies, almost everything works out of the box.
Alternatively, users can take advantage of a local version, for example to extract a small, personal knowledge graph in TTL format, or to export all or selected LOTUS data in more chemistry-friendly formats such as JSON or CSV, ready for analysis, visualization, or integration into other workflows.
\nFor example, to export a complete or filtered snapshot locally:
\nuvx \\\n --from \\\n git+https://github.com/adafede/marimo \\\n lotus_wikidata_explorer \\\n export \\\n --taxon \"*\" \\ # to get all taxa, else \"Gentianaceae\", for example\n --format csv \\ # also supports json, ttl\n --output 20260119_lotus.csv.gz \\\n --compress \\\n --verboseAnd if you are curious where halogenated compounds appear most often, you can simply ask:
\nxan dedup 20260119_lotus.csv.gz \\\n --select compound_inchikey,molecular_formula,taxon_name | \\\n xan select compound_inchikey,molecular_formula,taxon_name | \\\n xan filter \"contains(molecular_formula, 'Br') or\n contains(molecular_formula, 'Cl') or\n contains(molecular_formula, 'F') or\n contains(molecular_formula, 'I')\" | \\\n xan filter '!contains(molecular_formula, \"Fe\")' | \\\n xan freq -s taxon_name | \\\n xan hist -l value -RHistogram for taxon_name (bars: 11, sum: 11,604, max: 10,060):\n\nStreptomyces | 374 3.22%|\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 |\nLaurencia dendroidea | 314 2.71%|\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 |\nLaurencia obtusa | 184 1.59%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nPseudoceratina purpurea | 112 0.97%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nAplysia dactylomela | 99 0.85%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nNostoc | 99 0.85%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nLaurencia nipponica | 95 0.82%|\u25a0 |\nPortieria hornemannii | 94 0.81%|\u25a0 |\nLyngbya majuscula | 88 0.76%|\u25a0 |\nChaetomium globosum | 85 0.73%|\u25a0 |\n<rest> |10,060 86.69%|\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0|\n\nAt some point, flow only runs if it is maintained.
\n
As I do not post as often as I probably should, here are some other pointers to related work and discussions from the past months, for those who want to follow the flow a bit further:
\nRecently, I also contributed to improving how chemical reactions are modeled in Wikidata.
\nPreviously, many reactions were modeled as instances of \"chemical reaction\", which violated disjointness, see (Do\u01e7an and Patel-Schneider 2025).
\nThe introduction of type of chemical reaction now allows reactions to be classified more precisely, while preserving their hierarchy using subclass of.
\nOut of curiosity, I also made a small contribution to chemistry-related functions in Wikifunctions: Z30950. It validates CAS Registry Numbers. It does one thing, and it does it reliably.
\nIt is tiny. But it is a seed.
\nProjects like Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia point to the next phase of open knowledge: knowledge that is not only stored, but executed, reused, and recombined.
\nA global, open metabolomics knowledge graph is slowly taking shape, one where chemical structures, organisms, reactions, and evidence can finally be traced together.
\nLOTUS is no longer an initiative. It is one contributor among many in that graph.
\nIf you edit Wikipedia, curate Wikidata, maintain a SPARQL endpoint, write a template, review a module, or fix a tiny detail no one will notice, thank you. This work only matters because you are here.
\n@online{rutz2026,\n author = {{Adriano Rutz}},\n title = {Cultivating {Knowledge} {Flow} in {Open} {Chemistry}},\n date = {2026-01-20},\n url = {https://adafede.github.io/posts/2026-01-20_chem_flow.html},\n doi = {10.59350/sk00y-3gh44},\n langid = {en}\n}\nDR \u00a9SILVIA SANCHEZ
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/blogatarraya.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/SILVIA_SANCHEZ_4-16-setiembre.jpg?resize=770%2C770&ssl=1\")
Colecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre lienzo. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020.
\n\n\n\nEsta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.
\n\n\n\nRedes sociales de la artista
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRedes de Atarraya
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/e2zgd-gr431","guid":"https://blogatarraya.com/?p=8009","language":"es","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789516800,"rid":"jhcve-gks98","summary":"DR \u00a9SILVIA SANCHEZ Colecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre lienzo. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020. Esta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.","tags":["Sin Categor\u00eda","N\u00famero 31"],"title":"Mesa tendida con hojas y frutas","updated_at":1789975806,"url":"https://blogatarraya.com/2026/09/16/mesa-tendida-con-hojas-y-frutas/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Atarraya"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Atarraya"}],"community_id":"f17066f5-0dbf-48d0-a413-b22a79861a94","created":1723852800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Nuestras historias","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/atarraya","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/f17066f5-0dbf-48d0-a413-b22a79861a94/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blogatarraya.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blogatarraya.com","issn":null,"language":"spa","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"atarraya","status":"active","subfield":"1202","title":"BLOG ATARRAYA","updated":1789967759,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"BLOG ATARRAYA","blog_slug":"atarraya","content_html":"DR \u00a9SILVIA S\u00c1NCHEZ
\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/blogatarraya.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/SILVIA_SANCHEZ_3-1-setiembre.jpg?resize=770%2C768&ssl=1\")
Colecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre Lienzo 1.20 X 1.20m. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEsta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.
\n\n\n\nRedes sociales de la artista
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRedes de Atarraya
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/grnxe-ahd72","guid":"https://blogatarraya.com/?p=8000","language":"es","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1788220800,"rid":"gqfvk-sf473","summary":"DR \u00a9SILVIA S\u00c1NCHEZ Colecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre Lienzo 1.20 X 1.20m. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020. Esta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.","tags":["Artes Visuales","N\u00famero 31"],"title":"Desde mi ventana","updated_at":1789975804,"url":"https://blogatarraya.com/2026/09/01/desde-mi-ventana/","version":"v1"}},{"document":{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Pensoft Editorial Team"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"1e54953c-587a-4743-89af-ebd2cb45660c","created":1789516800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/pensoft","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/1e54953c-587a-4743-89af-ebd2cb45660c/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.pensoft.net/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blog.pensoft.net/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"pensoft","status":"active","subfield":"2303","title":"Pensoft Blog","updated":1789718983,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Pensoft Blog","blog_slug":"pensoft","content_html":"\n\nScholarly publisher and technology provider Pensoft Publishers announces the beta launch of ORPHO, a revolutionary online platform designed to streamline collaborative scientific writing and produce AI-ready, future-proof scholarly literature.
\n\n\n\nORPHO presents a significant advancement in scholarly publishing technology, combining intuitive writing features with sophisticated semantic enrichment capabilities. The new platform builds upon Pensoft’s fifteen years of experience as a developer of semantic publishing infrastructure.
\n\n\n\nKey Features
\n\n\n\nWithin a shared online workspace, researchers can start with built-in customisable templates, create their own or import an existing file. They can then team up with collaborators in real time using track changes, role-based user rights, inline comments, and document-level chat. More significantly, ORPHO automatically structures scientific content according to international publishing standards, making research outputs findable, discoverable, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) once published.
\n\n\n\nUnlike its predecessor, the ARPHA Writing Tool, ORPHO is available as a standalone real-time collaborative workspace decoupled from journals hosted on Pensoft's ARPHA Publishing Platform. Once a manuscript is ready, authors receive AI-FAIR machine-readable content that can be formatted to meet multiple journal requirements at the click of a button.
\n\n\n\nThe platform’s adaptability to domain-specific workflows is currently being piloted in biodiversity science. ORPHO integrates seamlessly with leading biodiversity data aggregators, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) and PlutoF, via import and export facilities for structured data, making ORPHO particularly valuable for researchers handling taxonomic, ecological and biodiversity data.
\n\n\n\nTaxon names, for example, can be automatically imported and linked through persistent identifiers from sources like the Catalogue of Life (CoL), International Plant Names Index (IPNI), World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and World Flora Online (WFO).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhy ORPHO?
\n\n\n\nThe name draws inspiration from multiple sources which reflect the tool's philosophy and heritage. Named after Orphium: a unique plant genus endemic to South Africa whose sole species (Orphium frutescens) is known as the sea rose, ORPHO reflects the platform’s distinctive nature, heritage, and core philosophy.
\n\n\n\nIt also evokes Orpheus, the legendary musician of ancient Thrace whose home region, the Rhodopi Mountains, lies in present-day Bulgaria, where ORPHO's developer, Pensoft, is headquartered. The name thus honours the tool's origins whilst embodying the exceptional creative performance it enables.\u00a0
\n\n\n\n***
\n\n\n\nProf. Dr. Lyubomir Penev, founder and CEO of Pensoft, comments:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"We are well aware that researchers today face an overwhelming list of formatting requirements and technical demands in an AI-driven landscape. It is true that rapid technological advancement presents both immense opportunities and mounting complexities for researchers.
\n\n\n\nWe built ORPHO to remove that friction by offering an intuitive, collaborative workspace that lets scientists focus on their research. As a scientific publisher, our mission is to make scholarly publishing a seamless, rewarding experience fit for the modern age.\"
\n
The beta release invites researchers, institutions and publishing platforms to trial ORPHO and provide feedback. Access is available at orpho.net.
\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rzp8f-9gv06","guid":"https://blog.pensoft.net/?p=20857","image":"https://blog.pensoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ORPHO-promotional-materials.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"5he8h-b7v07","summary":"Tweet Scholarly publisher and technology provider Pensoft Publishers announces the beta launch of ORPHO, a revolutionary online platform designed to streamline collaborative scientific writing and produce AI-ready, future-proof scholarly literature. ORPHO presents a significant advancement in scholarly publishing technology, combining intuitive writing features with sophisticated semantic enrichment capabilities.","tags":["Acta Ichthyologica Et Piscatoria","Advances In Pollinator Research","African Invertebrates","Agricultural And Environmental Modelling","Alpine Entomology"],"title":"Pensoft launches ORPHO: A new intelligent workspace for scientific writing","updated_at":1789970712,"url":"https://blog.pensoft.net/2026/09/21/pensoft-launches-orpho-a-new-intelligent-workspace-for-scientific-writing/","version":"v1"}}],"items":[{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"name":"CSM Advising LLC"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Marcum","given":"Christopher","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0899-6143"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"8bdb1ae7-4621-4fa5-ad1a-3a639417dfd5","created":1768694400,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Perspectives on science, data, and technology that don't fit anywhere else.","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/chrismarcum","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/8bdb1ae7-4621-4fa5-ad1a-3a639417dfd5/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"http://chrismarcum.com/marcum-blog/feed.atom","filter":null,"generator":"Jekyll","home_page_url":"https://www.chrismarcum.com/marcum-blog/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"chrismarcum","status":"active","subfield":"3312","title":"Open Evidence","updated":1789948800,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Open Evidence","blog_slug":"chrismarcum","content_html":"The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) - my old office at OMB - maintains a website that is used to shed light on both the federal regulatory and information collection development process. It's called reginfo.gov. The website provides basic data and information for analysis - by humans using a browser. There's no API and no straightforward way to scrape data using normal workflows. It would have been a valuable exercise for DOGE, or its OMB predecessor the USDS, to modernize reginfo.gov with a modern database and standard API for OIRA. But reginfo.gov is a sacred-cow there, and the forces of risk-aversion and workflow inertia have prevented it from becoming anything greater than a browser-based interface to OIRA data. And there is demand for expanded machine-access to reginfo.gov by a diverse set of stakeholders (including George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center per that repository). In light of this antiquated position and reluctance to change the site, I put together some tools in a github repository to help with machine-access called reginfo-tools.
\nI wrote reginfo-tools to make reginfo.gov more useful to those of us doing research, policy analysis, and work evaluating government-wide information policy and rulemaking processes. The tools let users query, scrape, and download metadata and documents from reginfo.gov across both the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection requests and Executive Order 12866 regulatory review workflows and dockets. Unlike the George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center toolkit, it does not rely on the XML bulk data download for analysis as my repos is primarily a collection of two search and two download tools.
\nIn general, reginfo.gov runs on an old technstack maintained largely by one person at OIRA. There's no public API. The site relies on nested and often malformed HTML tables, fragile session states, hidden anti-forgery tokens, and document downloads triggered by JavaScript instead of standard links. In my own work, basic scraping kept failing against these quirks, so pulling together a comprehensive approach took considerable work. I ended up programmatically intercepting and passing hidden form tokens to preserve state through pagination, and using a hybrid of DOM parsing and regex to find files hidden behind the legacy frontend.
\nThere are four scripts so far, covering both halves of the site, plus a unified CLI. Both Gemini Pro and Claude Code helped quite a bit - but they required a lot of help with nuance of the site that I had stored in my institutional memory; I've noted where those tools come into play directly in the script comments.
\npra-icr-search.py maps to the PRA Search form on reginfo.gov. It handles form tokens and pagination, and includes a \"Reactive Chunker\" that slices a query into monthly blocks if it would otherwise exceed reginfo.gov's 1,000-result cap. For example, to pull every form discontinued government-wide during 2025:
\n![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/blog.pensoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ORPHO-REAK-1.png?resize=840%2C1164\")
![\"\"](\"https://i0.wp.com/blog.pensoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ORPHO-REAK-2.png?resize=840%2C1164\")
python pra-icr-search.py dateType=DI startDate=01/01/2025 endDate=12/31/2025 --output 2025_disruptions.csv --delay 2\npra-icr-download.py takes an ICR reference number and downloads its attached documents into a named folder structure, handling duplicate filenames and inferring extensions when the server doesn't supply one. I use it like this to grab everything for a recent CDC collection:
\npython pra-icr-download.py 202601-0920-012 --both\neo-reg-search.py is the regulatory-review counterpart, mapping to the Search of Regulatory Review form for rules under EO 12866. It shares the same monthly chunker for large date ranges but the fields are slightly different because of nuances in database elements. Here's how I pull a year of EPA's concluded reviews:
\npython eo-reg-search.py agencyCode=2000 eoStatusCode=CD conclusionStartDate=01/01/2024 conclusionEndDate=12/31/2024 --output epa_2024_concluded.csv --delay 2\neo-reg-download.py takes a regulatory identification number (RIN) and pulls together everything reginfo.gov holds for it in a sensible directory tree on your local machine: View Rule snapshots across Unified Agenda cycles, RIN Data XML, review conclusion records, and EO 12866 meeting materials. Since the site requires specifying pending or concluded status, the script queries both automatically:
\npython eo-reg-download.py 2060-AW46 --all\nEach pair of search and download tools has a companion codebook, codebook.md and eo-review-codebook.md, documenting the agency and status codes I use to build queries as well as all the bizarre variable codings needed for lookup.
\nFor convenience more than anything else, I wrapped all four scripts under one helper function, reginfo-tools.py. This is useful so you don't have to remember which script does what. It's a thin dispatcher that executes the matching script as a subprocess with whatever arguments are passed by the user. I wrote this part with Claude Code, then tested and edited it myself.
python reginfo-tools.py icr-search agencyCode=1500 subAgencyCode=1545 icrStatus=AC --output irs_active_forms.csv --delay 2\nRunning python reginfo-tools.py --list prints the subcommand table, and --help after any subcommand passes through to that tool's own arguments.
You'll need Python 3.7 or later. The main dependency is BeautifulSoup, listed in requirements.txt:
\npip install -r requirements.txt\nI built this for my own use, but I'm sharing it in case it helps anyone else trying to get structured, historical data out of a site that wasn't built for that kind of access. Let's hope that this tool isn't needed in the near future and that OIRA gets over itself and joins the age of AI and machine-actionable data.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/gfv6w-qgk44","guid":"https://www.chrismarcum.com/marcum-blog/2026/09/21/introducing%20reginfo-tools","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"s2ake-axv12","summary":"The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) - my old office at OMB - maintains a website that is used to shed light on both the federal regulatory and information collection development process. It's called reginfo.gov. The website provides basic data and information for analysis - by humans using a browser. There's no API and no straightforward way to scrape data using normal workflows.","tags":["Government","Open Data","Civic Tech"],"title":"reginfo-tools: A Pseudo-API Command Line Interface for Accessing Regulatory Documents and Information Collection Requests","updated_at":1790006202,"url":"https://www.chrismarcum.com/marcum-blog/2026/09/21/introducing-reginfo-tools.html","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"J\u00e4ckel","given":"Florian"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"d2883c5c-8e82-4bc0-a892-92a8b752c7d9","created":1763683200,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"A blog about the dblp computer science bibliography","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/dblp","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/d2883c5c-8e82-4bc0-a892-92a8b752c7d9/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.dblp.org/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blog.dblp.org","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"dblp","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"blog.dblp.org","updated":1790003754,"use_api":false},"blog_name":"blog.dblp.org","blog_slug":"dblp","content_html":"Most scientific publications name the institutions their authors were affiliated with at the time of writing. The information is recorded alongside the author names, and it often sits in the metadata that dblp processes.
\nWe are happy to announce that this information is now properly represented in our data: research institutions have become proper entities in the dblp computer science bibliography. The affiliations that connect people and publications to those institutions are now recorded as data as well. In practice, this means five new things:
\nThis work is a main outcome of SmartER Affiliations, a joint project of Schloss Dagstuhl, GESIS \u2013 Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, and the Institute of Databases and Information Systems at Ulm University, funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG).
\nBelow, we introduce the new features, explain how the data fits together, and give some numbers on coverage.
\nAn institution is an entity. It has an identity of its own, recorded under a dblp identifier that starts with inst/, together with its names, acronyms, external identifiers, and other data. This data is found on the institution's landing page (cf. the screenshot further down below), just as with other entities in dblp. Institutions exist independently of whether anyone is currently affiliated with them. dblp currently knows more than 10,000 institutions in 195 countries.
An affiliation is a link between entities. It says that some entity in dblp is connected to an institution. The relationship itself is the thing being recorded, and it carries its own metadata, such as the time span it covers and whether it is a person's current or a former affiliation.
\nIn dblp, that link comes in two variants:
\nPerson-based affiliations connect a person to an institution. These are recorded manually by dblp curators, which makes them deliberate and reviewed, but also far fewer than the automatically retrieved ones: about 256,000 affiliation statements for some 195,000 people (of about 4,2 million persons total). The large majority describe a person's current institution, and around 24,000 are marked as former affiliations. On author pages, they still appear as the free-text notes you may know from before, but in dblp's data they are now links to institution entities.
\nSignature-based affiliations connect a signature to an institution. A signature is the link between a publication and one of its authors, the concrete act of that person authoring that paper. Signature-based affiliations therefore express something much more specific: \"in this paper, this author gave this institution as their affiliation.\" These affiliations are retrieved automatically at scale, mainly by extracting and matching affiliation statements from publication metadata. About 60% of all signatures in dblp currently carry at least one signature-based affiliation.
\nThe most immediately visible change is that publication lists can now be filtered by affiliation. On the pages where this applies, you will find affiliations as a new facet next to the filters you already use, and it can be freely combined with them.
\nNew filter facet: \"refine by affiliation\"
This filter operates on signature-based affiliations, and what it matches depends on where you are. On an author page, refine by affiliation offers that person's own affiliations and filters by those alone, so you get the papers this author wrote while at that institution. Everywhere else, in search results and on tables of contents, refine by institution matches a publication if any of its authors gave that institution on that publication.
\nEither way, the result is a subset of the papers in this view that are known to have been written at the institution. Obviously, someone who has just moved there does not bring their earlier publications along with them.
\nWhat any of these filters can return is limited above all by whether affiliation data exists at signature level, and very often it does not. So you get the publications for which we currently have an affiliation statement that we were able to match with sufficient confidence, rather than everything an institution has published. The data is knowingly incomplete, and we treat it as work in progress that will keep improving. More on the limits of the data below.
\nEvery institution in dblp now has its own page. It collects what dblp knows about the institution and what the institution links to:
\ninst/11/687,Wherever possible, the page contains links to the institution's data records in other projects and services. The underlying institution data is kept in sync with ROR, so that changes there find their way into dblp as well.
\nInstitutions are also browsable by country, in the same way you browse the rest of dblp.
\nInstitution landing page \u2013 here: Schloss Dagstuhl
Institutions have also been added to dblp's search. You can look them up by their preferred name, by an alternative name, or by an acronym, and follow the result straight to the institution's landing page.
\nSearching for an institution \u2013 here: combined search
Two different kinds of data come together here: the affiliation statements of the publications, and the institutions they are matched against.
\nThe affiliation statements (i.e., where each author was based when working on the paper) mostly come from the data we receive from the publishers. A further source is OpenAlex.
\nOur main source for institution data is the Research Organization Registry (ROR). ROR is an open, community-maintained registry of research organizations, released under CC0. It provides persistent identifiers, name variants and acronyms, location information, and links to other identifier systems. Building on ROR means that institutions in dblp are identified in a way that can be joined with data from anyone else who uses ROR IDs \u2014 which by now is a large part of the scholarly metadata landscape.
\nThat said, we do not simply mirror ROR. We continue to curate institutions ourselves, because our requirements do not always match those of a general-purpose registry. Computer science has its own history of institutional mergers, renamings, and re-organisations. Some organisations that matter for our data are not (or not yet) in ROR. And matching thousands of messy affiliation strings to a registry inevitably produces cases that need a human decision. Where ROR and dblp differ, the dblp record reflects a curatorial choice we made on purpose. About four in five of our institutions carry a ROR ID; the rest are ones we maintain on our own.
\ndblp does not model faculties, departments, institutes, or research groups as entities of their own. Generally speaking, the university is the lowest level of granularity we model. An affiliation statement naming a specific chair at a specific institute of a specific faculty of a university becomes an affiliation with that university, although the full text of the statement is kept.
\nThis loses information that some users would like to have. However, sub-institutional units are unstable. They are founded, merged, renamed, and dissolved far more often than their parent organizations, and reconstructing that history retroactively for decades of publications is not realistic. They are also inconsistently reported: the same group may appear as a chair, an institute, a department, or nothing at all, depending on the publisher's template and the author's mood. And they are largely absent from the external registries we rely on for identifiers. So we draw the line at the level we can keep consistent across the whole database.
\nNot every institution is a university, of course. Companies, non-university research institutes, government labs and hospitals are modeled in the same way, and the same rule applies to them: we record the organization, not its individual divisions or labs.
\nThere are a few exceptions where an organization that is formally a part of a larger body is nevertheless modeled as its own institution; typically when it is a distinct legal or research entity with its own identity in ROR. As a rule of thumb, though, we model whole organizations rather than their parts.
\nAs announced in our post on the SPARQL query service, extending the dblp Knowledge Graph with institution entities and affiliation links was one of our declared next steps. Institutions and person-based affiliations are now part of the dblp KG, are included in our RDF dumps (starting October 2026), and are queryable at https://sparql.dblp.org. Signature-based affiliations will follow.
\nInstitutions are modeled as dblp:Institution, carrying their names, their ROR ID in dblp:ror, and their location. Person-based affiliations connect an author to an institution through dblp:affiliatedWith, with the details of a single affiliation, such as the time span it covers, reachable through dblp:hasAffiliation. The full set of new classes and properties is documented in the dblp RDF schema.
Because affiliations are links rather than attributes, the interesting queries are the ones that traverse them. For example, you can list the institutions with the most affiliated people in dblp:
\nPREFIX dblp: \nSELECT ?name (COUNT(DISTINCT ?pers) AS ?people) WHERE {\n ?pers dblp:affiliatedWith ?inst .\n ?inst dblp:primaryInstitutionName ?name .\n}\nGROUP BY ?name\nORDER BY DESC(?people)\nLIMIT 20 (Run this query on sparql.dblp.org)
\nInstitutions also carry their ROR ID in dblp:ror and a link to Wikidata in dblp:wikidata, so the data can be combined with any other source that uses those identifiers. Wikidata, for instance, knows when an institution was founded, which is something dblp does not record. The query below takes the 500 institutions with the most affiliated people in dblp and sorts them by their founding date:
PREFIX dblp: \nPREFIX wdt: \nSELECT ?name (year(xsd:dateTime(?inception)) as ?inceptionYear) WHERE {\n{\nSELECT ?wikiq ?name (COUNT(DISTINCT ?pers) AS ?people) WHERE {\n?inst a dblp:Institution ;\ndblp:primaryInstitutionName ?name ;\ndblp:wikidata ?wikiq .\n?pers dblp:affiliatedWith ?inst .\n}\nGROUP BY ?wikiq ?name\nORDER BY DESC(?people)\nLIMIT 500\n}\nSERVICE {\n?wikiq wdt:P571 ?inception .\n}\n}\nORDER BY ?inception (Run this query on sparql.dblp.org)
\nAs we noted when the query service was launched, federated queries can be slow, and the number of results exchanged between the two endpoints needs to be kept in check. That is what the inner query with its limit is for.
\nCoverage is uneven. About 60% of all signatures in dblp currently carry an affiliation, 18.2 million out of 30.3 million. For most of what we index, coverage is good. The largest publishers account for roughly two thirds of all signatures, and for those, coverage is typically above 70%. What pulls the average down is a small number of clearly identifiable gaps. By far the largest is arXiv: its publications account for 2.6 million signatures in dblp, and fewer than 2,000 of them currently carry an affiliation. We are actively working on closing that gap. A few smaller gaps exist elsewhere, mostly where affiliations are not part of the metadata we receive. Coverage also peaks for publications from the mid-2010s and declines for recent years, mostly because the affiliation data for recent publications has not been processed yet.
\nAutomatic extraction makes mistakes. Signature-based affiliations are machine-generated. Names are ambiguous, institutions get renamed, \"Cambridge\" is not one place, and multi-affiliation authors are common. We invest a lot of effort into matching and into feeding curator corrections back into the pipeline, but errors remain.
\nPlease do not build rankings out of this. The count of publications per institution in dblp says at least as much about the coverage of affiliations in dblp as it does about the institutions themselves. dblp's scope is computer science, its indexing decisions are editorial, and affiliation coverage is a moving target. The data works well for exploration, discovery, and disambiguation but it makes a poor basis for evaluating institutions, and we would ask you not to present it that way.
\nAffiliations are historical, i.e., a\u00a0signature-based affiliation records what a paper said at the time it was published. It is not a statement about where someone works today, and an author who moves does not take their earlier publications with them. Person-based affiliations work differently. They can carry a time span, and they distinguish a person's current affiliation from former ones. They are also manually curated, and therefore far fewer in number.
\nWrong affiliations and wrong institutions can be corrected like any other data error in dblp.
\nIf you notice a systematic problem \u2014 an institution that has been split into duplicates, a merger we have not caught up with, a matching error that affects a whole venue \u2014 telling us about the pattern is much more valuable than reporting individual cases. You can always reach the dblp team at dblp(at)dagstuhl.de. For questions and discussion about the knowledge graph and the SPARQL service, our GitHub Discussions forum is the better place.
\nThere are some things left to do, for example bringing signature-based affiliations into the knowledge graph. We will also use the new affiliation data in our own curation work, above all for author disambiguation.
\nWe are very interested in how you end up using this data: both because it helps us set priorities, and because affiliation data has a way of revealing use cases nobody anticipated.
\nThe work described in this post has been carried out as part of the project SmartER Affiliations: Enhancing Open Repositories through Harvesting and Extracting Affiliation Data as First-class Citizen, a cooperation of Schloss Dagstuhl \u2013 Leibniz Center for Informatics, GESIS \u2013 Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, and the Institute of Databases and Information Systems at Ulm University. The project is funded by a grant of the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the funding program \"e-Research Technologies\" (grant project number 515537520).
\nWe would also like to thank the ROR community for maintaining an open registry of research organizations, without which this feature would have looked very different, and much worse.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/ew782-kf260","guid":"https://blog.dblp.org/?p=929","image":"https://blog.dblp.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Screenshot-from-2026-09-15-14-35-41-1024x327.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"e8dsd-hjk21","summary":"Most scientific publications name the institutions their authors were affiliated with at the time of writing. The information is recorded alongside the author names, and it often sits in the metadata that dblp processes.","tags":["Feature Spotlight","Affiliations","Institutions","Knowledge Graph"],"title":"Institutions as first-class citizens: introducing affiliations in dblp","updated_at":1790003968,"url":"https://blog.dblp.org/2026/09/21/institutions-as-first-class-citizens-introducing-affiliations-in-dblp/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Authors","given":"Sounding Out!"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Jennifer Lynn Stoever","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1528-7871"}],"community_id":"e7855922-6211-4622-873f-797c87c02fcb","created":1785110400,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"pushing sound studies into the red since 2009","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/soundstudiesblog","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/e7855922-6211-4622-873f-797c87c02fcb/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/","issn":"2333-0309","language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"soundstudiesblog","status":"active","subfield":"1210","title":"Sounding Out!","updated":1789999200,"use_api":false},"blog_name":"Sounding Out!","blog_slug":"soundstudiesblog","content_html":"SO!\u00a0Amplifies. . .a highly-curated, rolling\u00a0mini-post series by which we editors hip you to cultural makers and organizations doing work we really really dig. \u00a0You're welcome!
\nNameless Sound is a Houston institution, currently celebrating 25 years of bringing free experiences of experimental music making to the local community. The organization, founded by trombone player/composer/improviser David Dove, started out as a small workshop in improvisation for teenagers at the MECA (Multicultural Education and Counseling through the Arts), an arts community center in Houston's 6th Ward. Dove realized through musical practice with his students that the opportunity for creativity was often missing in traditional musical education and that improvisation was, for him, the most immediate and inclusive way to collaboratively engage young people in creative music making. Despite widely varying musical expertise, the students were able to able to meaningfully collaborate with one another. Beginners were captivated and engaged, while students with more musical education were challenged and ready to experiment. Shortly after this realization, Dove became part of the Advisory Board of Diverse Works, an arts organization in Houston's museum district, he began organizing concerts with leading experimental musicians, inviting them to lead sessions of his kids' workshop at MECA.
\nIt was Houston's own Pauline Oliveros who encouraged Dove to formalize this residency model\u2013experimental musicians come to town, give a public performance followed by a community workshop for young people\u2013that would become the blueprint for Nameless Sound's work today. The organization actually began as a branch of the Pauline Oliveros Foundation in 2001 (and would come to be called the Deep Listening Institute Houston when Oliveros's organization took on that name). That year they brought 9 artists to Houston and started a ongoing campaign of improvisation workshops in public schools (known then as The Houston Tour).
\nIn 2005 Jo Ann Williams, art therapist and founder of ArtBridge Houston, invited DLI Houston to start giving workshops for children in some Houston homeless shelters. This was an important turning point for DLI Houston. It widened the age group that the organization worked with. It began a practice of facilitating workshops for people who previously had no experience playing music at all. Perhaps most importantly, Nameless Sound began to witness the potential for social-emotional learning in the improvisational process, and they began to understand how a secure framework for creative music making could also provide a safe-space for emotional vulnerability.
\nIn 2006, with the blessing of Oliveros, DLI Houston broke off from its parent organization and became Nameless Sound, a fully independent 501(c)3 non-profit. Over the past 20 years, Nameless Sound has continued to evolve. Its concert series has become known for a diverse range of international artists who represent the most important and influential names in the music, as well as the emerging cutting-edge.
\nThe series features commissions and world-premieres, as well as special projects that entail collaborations between visiting artists and local musicians. Site-specific events in some of Houston's most interesting art environments often bring in visiting audiences from outside of the city. Visiting artists have included Susie Ibarra, Damon Smith, Keiji Haino, Louis Moholo, Maja Ratkje, Cooper-Moore, Matana Roberts, and Hamid Drake. Occasional interventions bring ears to seemingly unlikely public listening spaces. And one of our ongoing projects outside of Houston brings audiences to The Hill of James Magee, an art installation on private land in the West Texas Chihuahuan Desert.
\nOne of Nameless Sound's most popular interventions is They, Who Sound, which started out as a series of casual sessions at local Houston bars. After some challenges and changes in location, Nameless Sound officially took on They, Who Sound in 2018 as a weekly series of concerts in partnership with Lawndale Art Center. For Lawndale, the series represented something of a return to roots, as in the 1980's, Lawndale's original location was the site for some of the most memorable experimental music and underground rock events in Houston. Sun Ra, Anthony Braxton, Pauline Oliveros, Cecil Taylor and the Art Ensemble of Chicago all performed there, as did Black Flag, The Minutemen and the Replacements.
\nFor Nameless Sound, They Who Sound was an opportunity to provide a stage and shed light on Houston's diverse, vibrant, and unique experimental music scene. It has endured as a meeting place for Houston listeners and experimental musicians, and as a lab for new developments. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine, Nameless Sound contined to innovate and serve the community, creating They, Who Sound Special Delivery. For a small fee, anyone can schedule a They, Who Sound musician to come to their home and perform a 10 minute piece of experimental music from a safe distance.
\nThey, Who Sound continues in concert with the Lawndale Art Center every Monday from 7:30 to 9:30pm (Doors open at 7pm). Coming up September 28th, 2026 Nameless Sound will host Emily Beisel/Lisa Cameron & Laura Dykes/Kodey Salda\u00f1a/Thomas Swindell. For videos of past performances and to subscribe to receive future updates, you can check out Nameless Sound's Youtube Page or follow on Vimeo.
\nNameless Sound remains committed to a vision of personal and community evolution supported by the practices of creative music. Creative music improvisation provides a unique opportunity to cultivate group awareness, self-awareness and healthy vulnerability, with potential outcomes of knowledge exchange, creative work, play and healing. The skills developed through musical improvisation emphasize listening, creativity, spontaneity, dialogue and self-expression. There are free ongoing workshops through September 2026 and more to be announced.
\nOther upcoming events for Nameless Sound to close out 2026:
\nNameless Sound is currently in Fall Fundraising mode, with an anonymous donor matching every gift up to 8,000 dollars through TODAY, September 21. Here's to 25 more years of Nameless Sound with ongoing support from local and global sound communities!
\n\u2014
\nREWIND!\u00a0. . .If you liked this post, you may also dig:
\nSO!\u00a0Amplifies: Immigrants Wake America Podcast and the Work of Engaged Digital\u00a0Humanities
\n\nSO! Amplifies: Die Jim Crow Record Label
\nSO! Amplifies: Wu Tsang's Anthem\u00a0(2021)
\nSO! Amplifies: Carleton Gholz and the Detroit Sound\u00a0Conservancy
\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/k0be4-s6s31","guid":"http://soundstudiesblog.com/?p=29385","image":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image-8.png?w=1024","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"db489-99p35","summary":" SO! Amplifies. . .a highly-curated, rolling mini-post series by which we editors hip you to cultural makers and organizations doing work we really really dig. You're welcome! Nameless Sound is a Houston institution, currently celebrating 25 years of bringing free experiences of experimental music making to the local community.","tags":["Children's Issues","Civic Engagement","Community Organizer","Curation","Improvisation"],"title":"SO! Amplifies: Nameless Sound","updated_at":1789999521,"url":"https://soundstudiesblog.com/2026/09/21/so-amplifies-nameless-sound/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/02twcfp32","name":"Crossref"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Ofiesh","given":"Lucy","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5169-9796"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Crossref Staff"}],"community_id":"093ada45-3a02-4007-b8b6-be28f221e01d","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Recent content in Blog on Crossref","doi":"https://doi.org/10.64000/crossref","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/093ada45-3a02-4007-b8b6-be28f221e01d/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/feed.xml","filter":null,"generator":"Hugo","home_page_url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.64000","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"crossref","status":"active","subfield":"1710","title":"Crossref Blog","updated":1789948800,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Crossref Blog","blog_slug":"crossref","content_html":"On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I'm pleased to share the slate of candidates for the 2026 board election. Every active member organisation is invited to submit a ballot to elect the incoming board class.
\nEach year we do an open call for board interest. This year, the Nominating Committee received 55 submissions from members worldwide to fill seven open board seats.
\nWe have one large member seat and six small member seats open for election in 2026. We maintain a balanced board of eight large member seats and eight small member seats. Size is determined based on the organisation's membership tier (small members fall in the $0-$550 tiers and large members in the $600-$50,000 tiers).
\nWe were pleased to see the diversity in candidates, with applicants from 29 countries. The committee was keen to prepare a diverse slate of organization types, individual skills and perspectives, and global representation.
\nIf your organization is a voting member in good standing as of September 5th, 2026, you are eligible to vote.
\nThe voting contact for your organization will receive a ballot from eBallot, a third-party election platform. You should receive it on Monday, 21st September, and you will have until 12:00 UTC on 22nd October to submit your ballot.
\nThe election results will be announced at the Crossref2026 online meeting on 22nd October, 2026.
\nSpecial thanks to the committee: Nick Lindsay of MIT Press, Oscar Donde of Pan Africa Science Journal, Shaharima Parvin of East West University, Nicolas Mejia Torres of Universidad de la Sabana, and Amanda Ward of Taylor & Francis for the time they dedicated to reviewing the expressions of interest and participating in committee meetings.
\nIf you have any questions about our election process, please contact me.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.64000/y6yaj-5z881","guid":"https://doi.org/10.64000/y6yaj-5z881","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"63t4e-9k661","summary":"On behalf of the Nominating Committee, I'm pleased to share the slate of candidates for the 2026 board election. Every active member organisation is invited to submit a ballot to elect the incoming board class. Each year we do an open call for board interest.","tags":["Annual Meeting","Board","Crossref","Elections","Governance"],"title":"2026 board election slate","updated_at":1789998905,"url":"https://www.crossref.org/blog/2026-board-election-slate/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Adapt Research"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2","created":1753833600,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"As we build our world we build our minds","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/adaptresearchwriting","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/bfd37b46-cbce-4a47-9a9d-fdc1d9c8b8d2/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress.com","home_page_url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"adaptresearchwriting","status":"active","subfield":"2306","title":"Adapt Research Ltd","updated":1789998003,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Adapt Research Ltd","blog_slug":"adaptresearchwriting","content_html":"(In-depth reporting 15-20min read)
\nTLDR/Summary
\nIntroduction
\nLast week I attended the Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk (CCCR 2026), hosted by the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) at Magdalene College. Congratulations and thanks to Jess Bland, Sonja Amadae and the whole CSER team for another excellent event. Global risk research is fragmented across disciplines and institutions, and CSER's steady work in convening it is a public good the rest of us rely on. Few other meetings put nuclear strategists, pandemic epidemiologists and AI researchers in the same room.
\nI wrote up the 2024 conference largely as a survey of the discussions. This time I'm a bit more critical of omissions and lost opportunities. The theme was governance, so I apply a simple test: what problems were identified, what solutions were proposed, and what was missing. Noting that I am a co-author on four papers behind two of the posters presented at the conference (including the excellent poster by Florian Ulrich Jehn (see below) that was runner up for 'Best Poster'). In the discussion that follows I'll also be drawing on arguments from a new paper I've written with Nick Wilson, which provides a formal definition of the \"metacrisis\", and explains why known solutions to global risk so rarely succeed.
\nPre-conference Keynote: Max Tegmark on \"A Better Path for AI\"
\nOn the evening before the conference proper, Max Tegmark, MIT professor and president of the Future of Life Institute (the group behind the 2023 AI \"pause\" letter and films such as Artificial Escalation), gave a keynote by Zoom. He was unexpectedly optimistic.
\nAI risk has gone mainstream, he argued. Literally the previous day, Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon had shared a stage in Washington to call for curbs on AI, and the Pro-Human AI Declaration is gathering signatures. Tegmark's case was for trustworthy, verifiable \"tool AI\" in place of AGI and he introduced a theory of verification proof. Systems can be highly autonomous, highly general or highly capable, and combining any two of these gives us useful tools. What we should not build is the combination of all three.
\nI was less sanguine. Calls for regulation are rising, but US President Donald Trump insists that the only guardrail needed is a \"smart president\". The unanswered audience questions in the Zoom chat clustered on enforcement: not how do you build aligned AI, but how do you stop the other kind of AI being built when it is more profitable?
\nFormer US President Barack Obama gave a coincident nuanced take on the day of the CSER conference. This is clearly an issue for our times, though I think that a topic often neglected in discussion of AI risk or AI solutions is the issue of physical resources. Minerals prices are rising, finds are becoming smaller and harder to extract, and geopolitical turmoil creates conditions for piracy and destruction of production capacity. I suspect all this will constrain what is possible, and its price, and catalyse a lot more conflict, a point I return to below.
\nNuclear war and game theory: Sonja Amadae on geopolitics in 2026
\nThursday opened with Professor Sonja Amadae, Director of CSER. Not enough people are worried about nuclear war, she observed, despite a hot war in Europe and other overt conflicts. Arms control has lapsed, nuclear spending favours preparing for war over reducing its risk by roughly 40 to 1, and doctrines that reject the nuclear taboo are resurgent.
\nA central tension turns on how states frame the security dilemma. In a prisoner's dilemma defection dominates. In a stag hunt mutual cooperation is best for everyone, and the only problem is trust. The audience was encouraged to participate in such a game. In pairs, each of us privately ranked the four outcomes of a two-player nuclear game, talked to try to infer our counterpart's ranking, and made a single move.
\nTwo things became clear. If you are confident of your opponent's worldview, coordination is easy; the danger lies in misreading it. But a great deal also turns on the probability of catastrophe attached to mutual arms race (defection, defection) outcomes. How this is rated determines the expected value of defection versus a subjugation outcome if a cooperative move is denied (cooperate, defect).
\nAmadae's closing question is the right one: how do we turn geopolitical prisoner's dilemmas into stag hunts? You do not persuade players to be nicer; you change the payoffs so that defection stops winning, as verified arms control did in the late 1980s. That idea, that governance must reshape what the relevant environment rewards, runs through the rest of this post and our new preprint providing an evolutionary analysis of the \"metacrisis\".
\nNuclear risk has not gone away (Panel discussion)
\nMany catastrophic risk programmes now give most prominence to AI risk. CCCR 2026 gave nuclear war a plenary, a panel and a cluster of lightning talks. This is justified given the risk seems to have been rising, and it is one of the most plausible routes by which AI could actually produce a global catastrophe. Demetrius Floudas noted in his lightning talk that 2026 is the first year since 1972 without a single nuclear arms control treaty in force. Furthermore, the lesson of the Iran war is that a state can be punished for being close to a bomb, which incentivises secretly making one, and announcing later, the only way to guarantee safety.
\nThe panel made three key points:
\nInternational governance is collapsing. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni (University of Cambridge) noted that institutions turn one-shot games into repeated ones, yet the \"non-proliferation regime complex\" is fragmenting with renewed proliferation, institutional paralysis and a funding crisis at the International Atomic Energy Agency. No single new treaty will fix this and the challenge is to manage a complex system of nuclear states, with far more investment in verification.
\nNuclear winter is deeply uncertain, and war plans ignore it. Madeline Berzak (University of Chicago Existential Risk Laboratory) reported her new work. Nuclear winter depends on firestorms that loft soot into the stratosphere, which depend on what is targeted and what burns. Yet canonical models still lean on Hiroshima: a small bomb over a low-rise wooden city. Modern cities sprawl, rise higher and are full of plastics that yield two to three times the soot of wood. She observed that no targeting plan has ever accounted for the risk of nuclear winter.
\nUnilateral choices can cut risk without sacrificing security. James Acton (Carnegie Endowment) described a risk problem of entanglement, for example the same satellites and command-and-control systems serve conventional and nuclear operations, so an attack on them in a conventional war could look like the opening of a nuclear one. States need not wait for cooperation. Separating nuclear from conventional command and control, restraint in targeting, and care about where AI is used all reduce total risk, and each can be done independently, without suffering strategic setback.
\nAn omission in the nuclear war panel discussion surprised me: nobody mentioned the UN's Independent Scientific Panel on the Effects of Nuclear War, the first UN study of its kind since 1988, which reports in 2027. Nick Wilson and I will present our work on nuclear war vulnerability and resilience options to the panel's regional meeting in Bangkok on 21 October.
\nAI and the information ecosystem (Panel discussion)
\nThe AI panel, chaired by Alexandru Marcoci (CSER), skipped speculation on superintelligence and asked how AI is impacting the information environment now. Sam Stockwell (Alan Turing Institute) brought evidence through his team's incident repository which has logged some 60 crisis events in which AI degraded the information environment, mostly through fabricated \"evidence\" from the scene of real world events.
\nMoira Nicolson (UK Cabinet Office) showed how this reaches government. Social media is a distracting megaphone for a small minority, so MPs systematically underestimate public support for issues like climate policy.
\nGiulio Corsi (Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence) explained why it will get worse. At present most AI \"slop\" never wins attention, but agent swarms can: they coordinate, persist, game the early-engagement signals that feeds use for ranking, and hold conversations, which move people where static content does not.
\nThe panel indicated that remedies will need to focus on source labelling (through provenance standards such as C2PA), structures that make claims meet pushback rather than echo, and undercutting the monetisation of inflammatory content.
\nI agree with all of this. Though I have agreed with it for nine years. In December 2017 I gave a conference talk arguing that AI-driven content targeting threatened democracy, freedom, and free will. In 2018 I blogged at length that cultural evolutionary processes explain how information spreads according to three things individual biases assess (content, source and frequency) and that \"all three of these key features can easily be manipulated, at scale, and with personalization\". I proposed \"healthy content\" labelling akin to food labels, cryptographic verification of media (which is what C2PA now attempts), and outlawing the impersonation of humans. The panel's three talks map onto that triad.
\nEven back then I was not breaking ground, as my research had drawn on the evidence and recommendations of others.
\nSo the question I most wanted answered was not addressed. Given these problems were staring us in the face a decade ago, why has almost nothing structural happened, and why expect anything different now, moving forward? The problem has been diagnosed repeatedly. Where were the panel's concrete policy proposals and pathways to implementation, with a plan to overcome the barriers and pushback, including the defection of agents in the game playing an outlaw strategy for personal gain at cost to cooperative human systems?
\nDigital media platforms are selected for engagement, and engagement rewards emotive, tribal and familiar content over accurate content. The actors who profit are the ones who would have to change, the harm is diffuse and deferred, and we reach for fixes that change what people know (media literacy, fact-checking) rather than what the system rewards, this is a 'selection environment' problem, and a problem that requires an evolutionary governance lens.
\nMy 2018 argument in one sentence was that cheap, personalized, AI-enabled deception would break the connection between what society believes and what is actually true; and because accurate collective beliefs are necessary for solving every other major problem, securing the information environment should be treated as a high-priority form of global catastrophic-risk mitigation. At the time I ranked action to mitigate degradation of the information climate as more of a priority than action on the actual climate, since success in the latter depends on success in the former.
\nBut there is a deep loss in the dynamics underway. Faithful transmission of adaptive knowledge, with error correction, is a cumulative cultural achievement. Ritual, religion, apprenticeship, editorial gatekeeping and peer review all functioned, whatever else they did, as fidelity checks on the information environment. We have swept many aside in two decades without asking why they evolved or understanding the importance of their function. Move fast and break things is an information free-for-all and is not conducive to cumulative adaptation, the process which is humanity's superpower.
\nI call the result cognitive niche destruction: erosion of the shared map of reality on which every other risk response depends. The panel's example of catastrophe was a faked general announcing escalation. The slow version worries me more: leaders misreading the public, year after year, while climate action, or an understanding of the risk, and the systemic stresses humanity faces, stalls.
\nPandemics: societal problems with biological triggers (Panel discussion)
\nFriday's panel on the future of pandemic preparedness, chaired by Charlotte Hammer (CSER), shirked a discussion of pathogens and medical countermeasures, and that was exactly the point.
\nPhilip AbdelMalik (WHO) put it best: pandemics are fundamentally societal problems with biological triggers. The hard part is making response decisions under uncertainty. Mika Salminen (Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare) spoke from the decision-maker's chair noting that infectious disease (and other) experts are expert in one domain, but a decision-maker must weigh all the domains and decide. Katharina Lauer (University of Duisburg-Essen) observed that most people assume AI's pandemic threat is creation of a worse pathogen. But preparedness is mostly about gathering information, coordinating decisions and effecting a response, and those are what AI can disrupt (see the information ecosystem discussion above).
\nIn discussion, the panel noted that when prevention succeeds nobody notices, and institutions can be degraded precisely because they worked silently, so success needs to be advertised. On AI-enabled bioweapons the panel was cautious: much of the alarm comes from organisations with a commercial interest in AI's power, and designing an agent is a long way from building and delivering one. Pandemics that kill billions are unlikely, they argued, because extreme-mortality pathogens tend to be self-limiting.
\nThe most important remark concerned political leaders, who must be able to admit that the evidence has changed, or that they were wrong, and change course. Much harm has been and is done by dogmatic or ideological adherence to a strategy. This is a structural problem, not a personal one. Today's political discourse treats updating as weakness (the \"U-turn\", the \"flip-flop\"), so leaders are selected for doubling down and flawed information keeps propagating. Another 'selection environment' problem. A practical response could be to decide in advance, and publicly, which signals would trigger a change of strategy, so that changing course means executing the plan rather than confessing failure.
\nClimate: featuring governance proposals (Panel discussion)
\nThe theme of the conference was \"governance challenges shaping tomorrow's world\" and to be honest by Friday afternoon I had begun to wonder where the governance proposals were. This panel supplied some, and it was the clearest session of the conference.
\nElena Kavanagh (University College Cork) used the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) risk to show how we fail to govern tipping points. Depending on which study is reported, collapse is anywhere from 0 to 100% likely: an \"uncertainty trap\" in which unresolved signals justify inaction. Institutions are incremental by design, and none operates at the scale of the tipping point. Crises and wars have historically driven institutional innovation. She asked if scientific foresight could do that work before the shock? Her answer repurposes existing institutions across three phases (see Figure): prevention, which works only before a threshold is crossed; impact governance, which must begin before crossing tipping points; and stabilisation afterwards.
\nKennedy Mbeva (CSER) argued that climate risk is a governance failure, and that \"common but differentiated responsibility\" is quietly becoming common but shifted responsibility. The Paris Climate Agreement won participation by weakening differentiation, leaving new burdens without the means of implementation, while decarbonisation itself exports harm through mineral extraction. He invoked Thomas Hale's \"catalytic cooperation\": cooperation built by first-movers who change the costs and benefits for everyone else.
\nDante McGrath (University of Cambridge) treated solar radiation modification (SRM), as \"a stress test for global governance in the age of overshoot\". Exceeding 1.5\u00b0C is now inevitable, and carbon removal is far short of what is needed. SRM is \"a bad idea whose time has come\". But it fights the fever without curing the infection, redistributes risk regionally creating winners and losers, and threatens termination shock. He set out four futures: no SRM; multilateral SRM (legitimate but slow); minilateral SRM (faster but less legitimate); and rogue deployment. Governance must be built step by step, from research to deployment. His summary of the carbon problem: \"Reduce, Remove, (Reflect?)\".
\nIn discussion, the distinction between treaty negotiation and treaty implementation stood out: we agree, then fail to deliver. An unimplemented treaty changes nothing that the world actually rewards or punishes. And African leaders lack access to African research on SRM, because nobody funds it.
\nPosters and lightning talks
\nWith thirty-odd posters I can only be selective, and I have favoured those offering something a government could use.
\nGoverning vulnerability. UCL's branch of the Horizon Europe AGILE programme, another branch of which I encountered in Alicante this year, distilled 41 interviews with senior resilience experts into recurrent failure modes. Mhari Gordon told us of short political cycles, accountability gaps, \"disaster amnesia\", just-in-time brittleness, and centralised command that slows local action. The team's conclusion was that high-impact, low-probability crises result from a failure to understand and address systemic vulnerabilities, not simply failures of prediction. Their levers include no-regret capabilities, safe worst-case assessments, unfamiliar exercises and cross-border preparedness. This was a refreshing systems-focused rather than hazard-focused vulnerability take.
\nMiddle powers and citizens. Mariana Beselga asked how middle powers can turn presence into leverage over frontier AI. Across six countries and four governance processes, participation was near universal but established coordination rare. The only process with a documented effect on developer behaviour was the Hiroshima AI Process, through its OECD reporting framework. Leverage comes from converting commitments into instruments located where behaviour can change, and measuring the result. Giuseppe Dal Pr\u00e1 presented the first Odyssean Process on AI, which combines expert elicitation, decision-making under deep uncertainty and citizen deliberation.
\nResilience and food. Florian Jehn presented No Place to Hide?, on which I am a co-author. Four modifiable factors impact regional resilience to global catastrophe: democracy, decentralisation, preparedness and food system resilience. Trends are heading the wrong way on all four. Alongside it, Madeline Berzak's XLab team revisited nuclear civil defence in \"With More Than Shovels\". Some argue that civil defence might perversely raise the probability of war if it looks like first-strike preparation, but measures that are invisible to adversary planning and protect recovery capacity escape that paradox. Agricultural readiness looks positive with the authors' calculations finding that each $1 to $20,000 in preparation investment could save a life as well as benefit pandemic, volcanic winter and climate disaster scenarios.
\nAlso notable. Catherine Diyakonov's poster on coercive diplomacy in the Russo-Ukrainian war, voted best poster by attendees, showed how Russia used gas and Black Sea grain as leverage short of force. And Nick Wilson presented our own Covid-19 work, drawing on three papers we've written analysing excess mortality in the pandemic (click for video of Nick's talk).
\nReflections: existential catastrophe is unlikely, \"mere\" catastrophe is not
\nThe host of CCCR 2026 was the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, yet across three days almost nobody argued that humanity faces extinction. The field has quietly migrated from existential to catastrophic risk, and I think rightly. Even the most pessimistic nuclear winter models leave billions dead, not everyone. The most lethal pandemics would likely be self-limiting (following potentially catastrophic destruction). Humans have survived radical climate shifts before, because we are dispersed across diverse niches, though many individual human groups and civilisations have certainly perished. And nobody articulated a pathway from AI to extinction that does not run through the pathway of one of the other catastrophic risks.
\nCatastrophe is another matter. Work such as the Cascade Institute's Polycrisis CORE model describes a world system whose plausible trajectories converge on basins of decline. The conference's own evidence points the same way. No nuclear arms control treaty is in force. Emissions have risen since the Paris Agreement. There is still no binding regulation of frontier AI. The information ecosystem has degraded for a decade in ways that were foreseen.
\nSober risk analysis has to accept that if we could not act on these across ten or thirty years, the reasonable expectation is that we will not act in time now. A serious global catastrophe this century should be the planning assumption, not the tail.
\nDid the conference give us governance? To some degree. Our own research across the last decade suggests that governing global catastrophic risk needs seven things:
\nThe conference covered vulnerability, exercises, deliberation and coalitions well. Almost nobody addressed who, in any given country, is actually accountable for these problems. But I want to draw attention to two further gaps.
\nResources. Every future discussed, from abundant tool AI to decarbonisation or SRM at scale, assumes material and energy availability that may not be realistic. A recent paper in Resources Policy finds that the AI buildout is an infrastructure materials story rather than a semiconductor materials story. Data centre copper demand, mostly for grid reinforcement, rises from about 2% of global refined output in 2025 to 6.5% by 2030, roughly the annual consumption of the United States. Copper hit a record near US$14,800 a tonne in May. AI deploys in months, while mine openings take decades and are getting deeper and smaller.
\nAs Nate Hagens argued in his \"superorganism\" paper, the global economy behaves like an energy-hungry organism that must keep growing, and depletion steadily raises the energy cost of extracting what remains.
\nThis bears on the politics of AI, renewables and sustainable transitions, and various high compute intensity solutions to information pollution too. Global growth is already constrained by frictions on liquid fuel, energy and material supply, growing worse through 2026 (Ukraine, Russia, Hormuz, Red Sea) in ways that have yet to fully hit economies.
\nAI is seen as the way to sustain growth, which helps explain Washington's resistance to regulation. My view is that the same frictions will constrain AI. The more likely catastrophe is not runaway superintelligence but a flattening and then decline in growth, with conflict over what is left. Resource limits are a handbrake on the worst AI futures, but also on the solutions. None of these global system stresses and potential associated cascading catastrophes featured much at the conference.
\nFood system. The conference was organised by hazard, not by the systems those hazards would break, which is how groups such as the Cascade Institute and the Accelerator for Systemic Risk Assessment (ASRA) approach global risk. So the system through which most catastrophes would actually kill people, namely food, barely appeared (there were a few exceptions, but it deserves a panel). The omission was striking given the venue: two weeks earlier the UK's Environment Secretary had advised households to keep food stores at home, ahead of what the Met Office expects to be the largest El Ni\u00f1o since the 19th century (cynics might argue this call was a way to prepare against Russian hacking of logistics systems without scaring the public).
\nMy country, New Zealand's, version of the problem is complacency: we export food, but it does not follow that we are food secure, because production depends on imported diesel, fertiliser, seeds and parts and produces a monoyield of milk products. Our research shows New Zealand could feed itself through even a severe global catastrophe, but only with prior planning for fuel, crop mix and distribution.
\nWhy has so little worked to mitigate the risk of global catastrophe? The conference said much about what is going wrong, and less about why known solutions are not adopted. Our new paper defining a \"meta-crisis\" argues that institutions, technologies and norms evolve under selection pressures that reward what succeeds locally and immediately.
\nWe see platforms selected for engagement, states for relative advantage, firms for extraction, politicians for never changing course. Meanwhile the conditions that let risk-reducing adaptations accumulate (variation, modularity, a stable selective environment, faithful transmission of what works, and suppression of those who gain by defecting) are degrading together.
\nAppeals to the good sense of individual actors, through rational plans, and moral arguments cannot fix this. Changing what the environment rewards, and protecting the mechanisms that contain defection, can. The Montreal Protocol and verified arms control did exactly that. In our paper we diagnose the ultimate not merely proximate problem, and recommend the actual governance approaches that are needed to address global catastrophe risk.
\nLessons for moving forward
\nI left Cambridge with little hope that prevention alone will succeed in the face of its abject failure to date.
\nI have more conviction that the field's next task is to explain why this is so, and with that wisdom to build resilience to the coming outcomes where building is still possible.
\nThanks again to CSER for starting that conversation.
","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/1yq1c-htc15","guid":"http://adaptresearchwriting.com/?p=7947","image":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/image.jpg?w=452","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"zsshv-g6j24","summary":"(In-depth reporting 15-20min read) TLDR/Summary The Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk (17\u201318 September 2026) took the governance challenges shaping tomorrow's world as its theme , across AI, nuclear weapons, the information ecosystem, pandemics and climate. Congratulations to the Cambridge Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER) on another excellent event.","title":"Lessons from the Cambridge Conference on Catastrophic Risk 2026","updated_at":1789998161,"url":"https://adaptresearchwriting.com/2026/09/21/lessons-from-the-cambridge-conference-on-catastrophic-risk-2026/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"affiliation":[{"id":"https://ror.org/05a28rw58","name":"ETH Zurich"}],"contributor_roles":[],"family":"Rutz","given":"Adriano","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-9902"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Adriano Rutz","url":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-9902"}],"community_id":"9d85a476-b411-4d80-89d5-500bb0f3750d","created":1780876800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Personal website of Adriano Rutz","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/adafede","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/9d85a476-b411-4d80-89d5-500bb0f3750d/logo","feed_format":"application/feed+json","feed_url":"https://adafede.github.io/posts.json","filter":null,"generator":"Other","home_page_url":"https://adafede.github.io","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":null,"slug":"adafede","status":"active","subfield":"1312","title":"Adriano Rutz","updated":1789916794,"use_api":null},"blog_name":"Adriano Rutz","blog_slug":"adafede","content_html":"I have finally opened a Posts section on my website! Every post should now automatically get a DOI.
This is something I have wanted to do for a long time, largely inspired by the tireless and consistent example set by Egon Willighagen (Willighagen 2024b, 2024a, 2025).
\nIt was today's post of (Fenner 2025) that finally motivated me to look into it again. That led me down a productive rabbit hole to set up Rogue Scholar: first landing on (Csefalvay 2023)'s excellent guide, and then (Fruehwald 2025)'s clear write-up, both of which made the process of integrating Rogue Scholar into a Quarto-based site surprisingly smooth.
\nAll the changes are documented in the following commit:
\nhttps://github.com/Adafede/adafede.github.io/commit/bc2dfe6f
\nIf you care about attribution, long-term archiving, DOIs and metadata, I highly recommend looking into Rogue Scholar.
\nEdit (1): I realized that integrating CiTO could be a significant enhancement. With some effort (and thanks again to Egon), I managed to implement a working solution for the HTML and PDF outputs, see (Willighagen 2023). However, the solution for the XML feed still feels suboptimal.
\nEdit (2): After some help from Egon and Martin, I could improve my feed with correct CiTO annotations and their cool custom json feed, see: https://adafede.github.io/posts.json!
\n@online{rutz2025,\n author = {{Adriano Rutz}},\n title = {Open {Science} {Upgrade:} {Adding} {Blog} {Posts} to My\n {Website} and {Linking} to {Rogue} {Scholar}},\n date = {2025-08-04},\n url = {https://adafede.github.io/posts/2025-08-04_rogue_scholar.html},\n doi = {10.59350/yckwd-9vm79},\n langid = {en}\n}\nFive years ago, LOTUS (Rutz et al. 2022) started as a small attempt to cultivate the flow of chemical knowledge, in the same way we study how metabolites flow through living systems, rather than to build yet another database.
\nThe idea was simple. Natural products data should be open, structured, reusable, and belong to everyone.
\nLike many community-driven efforts, LOTUS had bursts of activity, long pauses, and years of invisible maintenance. From the outside, silence can look like disappearance. From the inside, it usually means people are still doing the work; slowly, carefully, and often without announcements.
\nThe early focus of LOTUS was necessarily inward: assembling data, cleaning records, releasing versions. We built a website, curated entries, and archived releases.
\nBut we slowly realized something uncomfortable: data stored in a repository, even a good one, does not automatically live.
\nArchiving on Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/communities/the-lotus-initiative) was the right thing to do, but archived data is mostly silent data. It waits to be discovered, and versioning remains labor-intensive.
\nWhat we really needed were entry points where people already were.
\nWikipedia , Wikidata , and Scholia building on top of it are not dissemination platforms in the classical sense. They are circulatory systems. They persist because communities maintain them.
\nThe Scholia Chemistry preprint (Willighagen et al. 2025) co-authored with Egon , Denise , Daniel , and Finn belongs to this continuity. It does not introduce a new platform. It offers a lens for communities to see what they already collectively know.
\n\n\nKnowledge needs channels, not just reservoirs.
\n
One important step was enabling Wikipedia articles and infoboxes to directly access found in taxon (P703) relationships from Wikidata in an efficient way.
\nThis sounds like a small technical detail. It is not.
\nThe idea had circulated quietly for years, in hallway conversations, chats, and conferences. I also mentioned it during the WikiCite 2025 conference last August, but it took time before conditions were right. Infrastructure work rarely happens on schedule. It almost never happens on stage. It happens in version histories, talk pages, and tiny edits that fix one Lua bug, enabling thousands of articles to improve forever.
\nOnce data is in Wikidata, it can flow into thousands of chemical articles, in dozens of languages, without duplication or translation overhead. It becomes visible to non-experts, students, and readers who will never see a database interface. This is how open data becomes public knowledge.
\nThese modules are now available on multiple Wikipedias:
\nIf you speak another language, feel free to copy them and increase their use.
\nInitially, I tried to reuse existing modules, and quickly learned why module reuse across Wikipedias is famously difficult. Each wiki evolves its own ecosystem of dependencies, conventions, and technical debt. So the modules were written fully contained, independent of language-specific infrastructure. Only lines that need to be changed are the language-specific translations at the top of the module, trying to follow 18n.
\nThese modules are not a new website or a new interface. They are simply better plumbing.
\n
By default, only 5 organisms are shown, keeping the text clean and readable. But the magic is in how the module handles the rest: each taxon links to its Wikipedia article, and if no article exists in the current language, the module gracefully redirects to an equivalent page in another wiki. A beautiful example of this is war for Quassia africana.
\n\nNot everyone wants to learn SPARQL.
\n
I have heard this sentiment countless times. Regardless of personal preferences, if we want the data to truly live, it must reach as many people as possible.
\nSmall tools like the LOTUS Wikidata Explorer help lower that barrier. It is imperfect. It is still growing. But it already allows chemists, curators, and students to access and export data in formats they can actually use.
\nThe principle is simple: knowledge only flows when it reaches people. The data must be seen, explored, and reused. Only then does it fulfill its purpose.
\n
On a more technical note, the LOTUS Wikidata Explorer leverages the powerful IDSM endpoint (Galgonek and Vondr\u00e1\u0161ek 2021), which allows for chemical similarity searches thanks to Sachem (Kratochv\u00edl et al. 2018). Its speed for large-scale queries could never have been reached without QLever (Bast and Buchhold 2017), and chemical depictions come from CDK Depict.
\nIt returns structured metadata for traceability and reproducibility, together with hashes that uniquely identify the query and its results. It can be queried programmatically via simple API calls, for example ?taxon=Gentianaceae or ?smiles=c1ccccc1&formula_filter=true&f_state=required. It works directly in the browser without requiring heavy dependencies, almost everything works out of the box.
Alternatively, users can take advantage of a local version, for example to extract a small, personal knowledge graph in TTL format, or to export all or selected LOTUS data in more chemistry-friendly formats such as JSON or CSV, ready for analysis, visualization, or integration into other workflows.
\nFor example, to export a complete or filtered snapshot locally:
\nuvx \\\n --from \\\n git+https://github.com/adafede/marimo \\\n lotus_wikidata_explorer \\\n export \\\n --taxon \"*\" \\ # to get all taxa, else \"Gentianaceae\", for example\n --format csv \\ # also supports json, ttl\n --output 20260119_lotus.csv.gz \\\n --compress \\\n --verboseAnd if you are curious where halogenated compounds appear most often, you can simply ask:
\nxan dedup 20260119_lotus.csv.gz \\\n --select compound_inchikey,molecular_formula,taxon_name | \\\n xan select compound_inchikey,molecular_formula,taxon_name | \\\n xan filter \"contains(molecular_formula, 'Br') or\n contains(molecular_formula, 'Cl') or\n contains(molecular_formula, 'F') or\n contains(molecular_formula, 'I')\" | \\\n xan filter '!contains(molecular_formula, \"Fe\")' | \\\n xan freq -s taxon_name | \\\n xan hist -l value -RHistogram for taxon_name (bars: 11, sum: 11,604, max: 10,060):\n\nStreptomyces | 374 3.22%|\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 |\nLaurencia dendroidea | 314 2.71%|\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0 |\nLaurencia obtusa | 184 1.59%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nPseudoceratina purpurea | 112 0.97%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nAplysia dactylomela | 99 0.85%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nNostoc | 99 0.85%|\u25a0\u25a0 |\nLaurencia nipponica | 95 0.82%|\u25a0 |\nPortieria hornemannii | 94 0.81%|\u25a0 |\nLyngbya majuscula | 88 0.76%|\u25a0 |\nChaetomium globosum | 85 0.73%|\u25a0 |\n<rest> |10,060 86.69%|\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0\u25a0|\n\nAt some point, flow only runs if it is maintained.
\n
As I do not post as often as I probably should, here are some other pointers to related work and discussions from the past months, for those who want to follow the flow a bit further:
\nRecently, I also contributed to improving how chemical reactions are modeled in Wikidata.
\nPreviously, many reactions were modeled as instances of \"chemical reaction\", which violated disjointness, see (Do\u01e7an and Patel-Schneider 2025).
\nThe introduction of type of chemical reaction now allows reactions to be classified more precisely, while preserving their hierarchy using subclass of.
\nOut of curiosity, I also made a small contribution to chemistry-related functions in Wikifunctions: Z30950. It validates CAS Registry Numbers. It does one thing, and it does it reliably.
\nIt is tiny. But it is a seed.
\nProjects like Wikifunctions and Abstract Wikipedia point to the next phase of open knowledge: knowledge that is not only stored, but executed, reused, and recombined.
\nA global, open metabolomics knowledge graph is slowly taking shape, one where chemical structures, organisms, reactions, and evidence can finally be traced together.
\nLOTUS is no longer an initiative. It is one contributor among many in that graph.
\nIf you edit Wikipedia, curate Wikidata, maintain a SPARQL endpoint, write a template, review a module, or fix a tiny detail no one will notice, thank you. This work only matters because you are here.
\n@online{rutz2026,\n author = {{Adriano Rutz}},\n title = {Cultivating {Knowledge} {Flow} in {Open} {Chemistry}},\n date = {2026-01-20},\n url = {https://adafede.github.io/posts/2026-01-20_chem_flow.html},\n doi = {10.59350/sk00y-3gh44},\n langid = {en}\n}\nDR \u00a9SILVIA SANCHEZ
\n\n\n\nColecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre lienzo. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020.
\n\n\n\nEsta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.
\n\n\n\nRedes sociales de la artista
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRedes de Atarraya
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/e2zgd-gr431","guid":"https://blogatarraya.com/?p=8009","language":"es","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789516800,"rid":"jhcve-gks98","summary":"DR \u00a9SILVIA SANCHEZ Colecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre lienzo. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020. Esta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.","tags":["Sin Categor\u00eda","N\u00famero 31"],"title":"Mesa tendida con hojas y frutas","updated_at":1789975806,"url":"https://blogatarraya.com/2026/09/16/mesa-tendida-con-hojas-y-frutas/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Atarraya"}],"blog":{"authors":[{"name":"Atarraya"}],"community_id":"f17066f5-0dbf-48d0-a413-b22a79861a94","created":1723852800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":"Nuestras historias","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/atarraya","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/f17066f5-0dbf-48d0-a413-b22a79861a94/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blogatarraya.com/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blogatarraya.com","issn":null,"language":"spa","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"atarraya","status":"active","subfield":"1202","title":"BLOG ATARRAYA","updated":1789967759,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"BLOG ATARRAYA","blog_slug":"atarraya","content_html":"DR \u00a9SILVIA S\u00c1NCHEZ
\n\n\n\nColecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre Lienzo 1.20 X 1.20m. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020.
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEsta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.
\n\n\n\nRedes sociales de la artista
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nRedes de Atarraya
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/grnxe-ahd72","guid":"https://blogatarraya.com/?p=8000","language":"es","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1788220800,"rid":"gqfvk-sf473","summary":"DR \u00a9SILVIA S\u00c1NCHEZ Colecci\u00f3n La mesa tendida. Acr\u00edlico sobre Lienzo 1.20 X 1.20m. Yerba Buena, Tucum\u00e1n, Argentina, 2020. Esta es una reproducci\u00f3n digital, con fines de divulgaci\u00f3n, de una obra original, todos los derechos de autor y reproducci\u00f3n est\u00e1n reservados por el artista.","tags":["Artes Visuales","N\u00famero 31"],"title":"Desde mi ventana","updated_at":1789975804,"url":"https://blogatarraya.com/2026/09/01/desde-mi-ventana/","version":"v1"},{"authors":[{"contributor_roles":[],"name":"Pensoft Editorial Team"}],"blog":{"authors":null,"community_id":"1e54953c-587a-4743-89af-ebd2cb45660c","created":1789516800,"current_feed_url":null,"description":null,"doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/pensoft","favicon":"https://rogue-scholar.org/api/communities/1e54953c-587a-4743-89af-ebd2cb45660c/logo","feed_format":"application/atom+xml","feed_url":"https://blog.pensoft.net/feed/atom/","filter":null,"generator":"WordPress","home_page_url":"https://blog.pensoft.net/","issn":null,"language":"eng","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","prefix":"10.59350","relative_url":null,"secure":true,"slug":"pensoft","status":"active","subfield":"2303","title":"Pensoft Blog","updated":1789718983,"use_api":true},"blog_name":"Pensoft Blog","blog_slug":"pensoft","content_html":"\n\nScholarly publisher and technology provider Pensoft Publishers announces the beta launch of ORPHO, a revolutionary online platform designed to streamline collaborative scientific writing and produce AI-ready, future-proof scholarly literature.
\n\n\n\nORPHO presents a significant advancement in scholarly publishing technology, combining intuitive writing features with sophisticated semantic enrichment capabilities. The new platform builds upon Pensoft’s fifteen years of experience as a developer of semantic publishing infrastructure.
\n\n\n\nKey Features
\n\n\n\nWithin a shared online workspace, researchers can start with built-in customisable templates, create their own or import an existing file. They can then team up with collaborators in real time using track changes, role-based user rights, inline comments, and document-level chat. More significantly, ORPHO automatically structures scientific content according to international publishing standards, making research outputs findable, discoverable, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) once published.
\n\n\n\nUnlike its predecessor, the ARPHA Writing Tool, ORPHO is available as a standalone real-time collaborative workspace decoupled from journals hosted on Pensoft's ARPHA Publishing Platform. Once a manuscript is ready, authors receive AI-FAIR machine-readable content that can be formatted to meet multiple journal requirements at the click of a button.
\n\n\n\nThe platform’s adaptability to domain-specific workflows is currently being piloted in biodiversity science. ORPHO integrates seamlessly with leading biodiversity data aggregators, including the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD) and PlutoF, via import and export facilities for structured data, making ORPHO particularly valuable for researchers handling taxonomic, ecological and biodiversity data.
\n\n\n\nTaxon names, for example, can be automatically imported and linked through persistent identifiers from sources like the Catalogue of Life (CoL), International Plant Names Index (IPNI), World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and World Flora Online (WFO).
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nWhy ORPHO?
\n\n\n\nThe name draws inspiration from multiple sources which reflect the tool's philosophy and heritage. Named after Orphium: a unique plant genus endemic to South Africa whose sole species (Orphium frutescens) is known as the sea rose, ORPHO reflects the platform’s distinctive nature, heritage, and core philosophy.
\n\n\n\nIt also evokes Orpheus, the legendary musician of ancient Thrace whose home region, the Rhodopi Mountains, lies in present-day Bulgaria, where ORPHO's developer, Pensoft, is headquartered. The name thus honours the tool's origins whilst embodying the exceptional creative performance it enables.\u00a0
\n\n\n\n***
\n\n\n\nProf. Dr. Lyubomir Penev, founder and CEO of Pensoft, comments:
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\"We are well aware that researchers today face an overwhelming list of formatting requirements and technical demands in an AI-driven landscape. It is true that rapid technological advancement presents both immense opportunities and mounting complexities for researchers.
\n\n\n\nWe built ORPHO to remove that friction by offering an intuitive, collaborative workspace that lets scientists focus on their research. As a scientific publisher, our mission is to make scholarly publishing a seamless, rewarding experience fit for the modern age.\"
\n
The beta release invites researchers, institutions and publishing platforms to trial ORPHO and provide feedback. Access is available at orpho.net.
\n\n","doi":"https://doi.org/10.59350/rzp8f-9gv06","guid":"https://blog.pensoft.net/?p=20857","image":"https://blog.pensoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ORPHO-promotional-materials.png","language":"en","license":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode","published_at":1789948800,"rid":"5he8h-b7v07","summary":"Tweet Scholarly publisher and technology provider Pensoft Publishers announces the beta launch of ORPHO, a revolutionary online platform designed to streamline collaborative scientific writing and produce AI-ready, future-proof scholarly literature. ORPHO presents a significant advancement in scholarly publishing technology, combining intuitive writing features with sophisticated semantic enrichment capabilities.","tags":["Acta Ichthyologica Et Piscatoria","Advances In Pollinator Research","African Invertebrates","Agricultural And Environmental Modelling","Alpine Entomology"],"title":"Pensoft launches ORPHO: A new intelligent workspace for scientific writing","updated_at":1789970712,"url":"https://blog.pensoft.net/2026/09/21/pensoft-launches-orpho-a-new-intelligent-workspace-for-scientific-writing/","version":"v1"}],"out_of":57629,"page":1,"per_page":10,"total-results":57629}