Hello, I welcome you all once again to my channel Explore Education and Dr. Rashmi Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Education, at this Kanna Girls degree college, University of Allahabad. And it is my email ID, this one, and the rector will be in bilingual mode as usual. And today I'm going to discuss a topic under the theme of you can say digital revolution or digital education or digitalization, that is digital transparency. It is somewhat new term, less people are aware about it and the lector will be useful as usual. So let's start. First of all, digital transparency. You can say that you have a lot of data, your personal information, people have it, because you have touched a link, you have made a form, so what is the concept of digital transparency? Let's start from where? Let's start with Knowledge Society. Why? Because in the 21st century, where we live, there is knowledge society. That is, the society of knowledge, that is why it has been thought that everything is based on knowledge. So what is the hierarchy of knowledge? The bottom line of it is data. From data, what is data? Given context. Data is the context data that creates information, information given me. It creates knowledge and when knowledge gives insight, it becomes wisdom. From here, data signals, no nothing. Data does not give you any idea. But information, what you can say that organized data is information. It is useful, it is structured. The knowledge is contextually synthesized learning. And what are the requirements of wisdom? Understanding or integrated or action-able? That is, knowledge will not work, we have wisdom to do action, what are we going to do? But still everything is based on this data. You can say that this is the power of data, which rest in the knowledge society on all the data. Better interpret the role of knowledge in our modern society. In 1989, Professor Ekhoff designed a hierarchical pyramid, which finds its base in data. He created a hierarchical pyramid, which said that everything was based on this data. With knowledge, wisdom becomes wisdom and we have wisdom. In 2004, another schema was developed to allow us to view data. Information and knowledge is distinct kinds of economic goods. That is to say, the data, the information, the knowledge is not academic, but it has become an economic goods. Because all the money is based on this. Then, basically information is an extraction from data. What is information? Data extracts something, that is the information. By modifying the relevant problem in the distributions, it has the capacity to perform useful work on an agent's knowledge base. If you extract the information, information will give you knowledge and wisdom. From here, you can link the role of data in the knowledge society. All this is clear. Data is important in the digital world. What is the importance of data in the digital world? So, what is the importance of data? Data becomes more and more important during the last decades. In the last 10 years, the importance of data has increased greatly. The Economist set in fact. The Economist says that the world's most valuable resource is no longer oil but data. Earlier it was said that it has raw oil. You can say that the world can control it. Because transportation will stop as long as it is not there. But now it is said that the most important resource is not only the fuel, but also the fuel, which has the most fuel. This is said in 2017. As anticipated by the Ekoff's Pyramid and stressed by David Mackendles, data can be identified not as the new oil but as the new soil. You can tell that the importance of data has increased in the digital youth. In the last decade, cloud, social and mobile technologies along with greater wireless broadband access around the globe have pushed digital technology into the mainstream of everyday life. Needless to say, there is no need to tell us how digital technology has become a part of our everyday life. The result of the increasing power and reach of digital technology is the creation of massive amounts of data. And it has created so much data. In fact, some researchers estimate that 90% of the data in the world has been created in just past two years. You can understand how much data has been created in the past two years. What is the problem again? Ethical challenges in digital technologies. This means that the data is important and you cannot go without it. But what is the issue now? The issue is that when we are using digital technology, how will we cope up with ethical challenges? How will we find out that we are doing the right thing, that we are doing the wrong thing, that we are not doing the right thing? Who will guide us about this? The omnipresence of digital technology in our daily life, which is a part of digital technology in our day to day life, has become part of our dynamic nature. Its use and its impact on organizations and individuals raises ethical questions. This has given the ethical questions about its role in the world society. What will be the ethical questions in this? Consent and privacy. I mean, our consent has been taken away from us for the usage of our data. How much portion will be private and how much will be open? What is the issue of security? What is the issue of inclusion and fairness? Protection from online. We give our data and then give our information. We create information from the data and no harm will be done to us online. We should be transparent. We should have accountability who has taken the data from us. All these issues emerge as ethical challenges when we use digital technology. Transparency and definition of the underlying moral values and perspectives is an essential step to develop and implement ethical processes. Transparency is important. Transparency is one of the pillars of digital trust. We can trust each other in digital youth. We need transparency. When we see whether our data is here or there, we can see that our data is not heated. How data is collected, managed and used is not just a legal issue, it is an ethical issue. How data is collected, managed, used will not be a legal issue. This has become an ethical issue. In the digital world, transparency and integrity must be the core values that guide professional behavior. When we talk about digital youth, digital society, transparency and integrity are the core values that guide our professional behavior. How do we behave professionally? Organizations must use data in responsible and ethical ways. Organizations who have learned your data have to handle it in a responsible manner. Now let's talk about digital transparency. Transparency has become a buzzword in the field of digital technology fueled by the increasing dominance of internet companies in public life and alongside their benefits, also their potential for causing harm to human rights. Transparency is a word that is widely used in digital technology. The more internet companies have dominated our public life, the more it has increased its value. Its benefits are there, but its potential harms the human rights violations. Transparency is an important characteristic of a distributed system as it makes their operation in the eyes of the user to be more friendly, easy and simply transparent. It is a condition where the material facts of an enterprise are made available in a timely and preferably reusable manner. They say that as much as your internet technology is it is an important characteristic and we should see in an easy, simply, transparent, friendly manner that the user should know what data is being done. The right to information act 2005 was enacted to promote transparency and accountability of every public authority by ensuring that citizens are able to secure access to information under the control of public authorities. The right to information act of the RTI Act was introduced in 2005 to increase transparency and accountability. That means that you can ask for any information from any office under the RTI Act. This was not so much of a digitalisation in 2005, but now it has become digital transparency. The right to information act is thus one of the most important tools and the disposal of the public to engage with and demand transparency and accountability from the government. Transparency drawing from the use of the term in relation to the universal right to freedom of information has a dual dimension. They are saying that the dual dimension of freedom of information covers arrangement for access to information and data as well as those for pro-active disclosure. The truth is that transparency is a multi-faceted concept in digital media and a mutually agreed standard definition does not currently exist. They are saying that transparency means dual dimension. They are saying that the amount of transparency will be the same as the amount of privacy and transparency. That is why the multi-faceted concept does not currently exist. Let's talk about online education. What is digital transparency? Transparency is a catalyst for interaction and participation that supports open learning in multiple disciplines and institutional contexts. They are saying that when we talk about multiple disciplines in an institutional context, it supports open learning. Why digital transparency? Because you can see my content. I can give you your content. Transparency promotes interactive, participatory and reflective spaces for creating and communicating information in collaborative Web 2.0 environment. If you have the knowledge of Web 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then you will know that the main characteristic feature of Web 2 is cooperation. In Wikipedia, anyone can edit the site and reduce its context. There are clauses that you can do but no one can do it. This is a cooperative site. It is faster than collaboration. Transparency is the same as interactive, participatory, and reflective spaces for communicating information. According to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, in 2011, Open Educational Resources. We have heard a lot about OER. Open Educational Resource is a material for reading. It is open. There is no boundary on it. Who is open? Transparency is open. Learning and research materials that are in the public domain. Public domain means that anyone can use it. And released with an intellectual property license that allows anyone to freely use it. You can adapt it. You can distribute it. There is only one clause in it that you have to give it due credit. This is not your material. The future progress of OERs will depend on our understanding of the relationship between transparency and pedagogy in Web 2.0 and mobile environments. Transparency and pedagogy depend on the understanding of the relationship between OERs. Transparency is critical to the design of dynamic open learning spaces to enhance the way learners interact and contribute online. Transparency is one of the reasons why we are able to make dynamic open learning spaces. This learning space that is open and dynamic and the interaction of learners can be enhanced online. Designing and transparency defines eight essential elements of transparent design. What are the eight essential elements? flexibility interactivity fluidity visualization collaboration publishing distribution Transparency and Web 2.0 define how Web 2.0 is a user-centered platform and transparency is a characteristic of Web environment. He described peer-to-peer file sharing in which every client is also a server. He said that every client is a server. Files are broken up into fragments that can be served from multiple locations transparently harnessing the network of downloaders to provide bandwidth and data to other users. In this context, the communication between user and computer extends to a collaborative group of contributors within a network. Transparency promotes the way information is constructed or reviewed and also includes the ways in which learning is transformed in this process. Transparency promotes how to construct information and review. Transparency in online education and collaboration is very important. Transparency does not bring the concept of transparency. Everyone has their own data, but it does not bring the concept of transparency. According to George Siemens, in 2009, when someone decides to share their thoughts when we want to share when I upload this video on YouTube, it is a digital transparency that I want to share my views. If I don't want to share, then it will only be for my students. When someone decides to share their thoughts and ideas in a transparent manner, they become a teacher to those who are observing. Whoever wants to see the digital transparency in the world, it is possible that my videos will be shown. Who is this? Who is this? Who is this? Who is this? Who is this? He argued that social technology is like a Twitter, a blog, a Facebook. He opened the door to sharing the process of learning. He has called the door of learning. In this environment, the social dimension of each interface is transparent, extending beyond any traditional learning space and allowing for dialogue among peers in between the teacher and the learning space. So this concept of transparency is a social dimension of each interface is transparent, extending beyond any traditional learning space and allowing for dialogue among peers in between the teacher and the learning space. So this concept of open data is data that can be freely used, reused and redistributed by anyone. They are saying that you can freely use, reuse, redistribute and most of the requirement to attribute and share. When you read the creative comments then you will know. The sharing of open data can be incredibly beneficial to society. It is very beneficial for our society. It is facilitating enhanced scientific collaboration and reproducibility, increasing government and corporate transparency and speeding the discovery and understanding of solutions to planetary and societal needs. So you can understand how useful it is. A big part of the potential value of data is realized by use How does this occur legally? Increasingly, sharing of data is facilitated through the use of standard public legal tools used to engage copyright and similar restrictions. So all of these are saying that in OPC, and data-specific repositories allow users to upload in share under CC licenses. All the videos I upload on YouTube are all based on creative common licenses. You can use it, reuse it, redistribute it. All of these will not be copyrighted. You just have to give credit to where you got it from. Creative Commons and Online Education are saying that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, impart, information and ideas to any media regardless of frontiers. No matter what, we can receive, impart, and seek information and ideas. This article was mentioned in Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is also promoting digital transparency. OER is released under Creative Commons licenses such as textbooks, courses, and lesson plans. What can you do? It is easy for you to search, share, customize, combine. With CC licenses, learners can find and incorporate freely accessible materials for reports and presentations. You can make reports, you can customize the educator. There can be a lot of things. Services for an enhanced learning experience. Our learning experience has been enhanced so much. We used to say that if this was not the case, we would just teach our teachers. But now, we can take anyone who is better than anyone. If we talk about Creative Commons licensing and transparency, David Bolier has written that governments are coming to realize that they are one of the most important property. And that the wide dissemination of their work, statistics, reports, legislation, judicial decisions can stimulate economic innovation, scientific progress, education, and cultural development. Governments did not think that the statistics they have and the research they have and the reports they have published should be published under Creative Commons licensing, digital transparency, you can't do that. Creative Commons develops supports and stewards legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, innovation. And role of UNESCO and transparency. What is UNESCO's role in transparency? Transparency is highly relevant to UNESCO as part of the United Nations. UNESCO operates within the frameworks of Universal Human Rights, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the strategy for objectives and constraints. Broadly, transparency recognizes necessary for building peaceful, just and inclusive societies. This is for the society. As soon as there is digital transparency, our society will be digital so transparency is considered as peaceful, just and inclusive society. Similarly, transparency is a global standard setting instrument on the ethics of AI. Artificial intelligence is coming. Proposed as a key principle in the first draft of the recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. Transparency is often a crucial precondition to ensure that fundamental human rights and ethical principles are respected. They say that your molecular human rights will be protected and respected. Then, privacy, free expression and transparency will be related. Privacy and transparency will be in two poles. They say that the internet and the underpinning ICPs have also enabled a wider range of individuals to access and share more information globally and to make greater use of their right to freedom of expression. It is also by enabling a more efficient communication between individuals in large scope of the right to freedom of expression and opinion, often promoting transparency as a notion that lies at the core of the other public interest. We understand this that we need to be transparent that misuse can also be used. However, the misuse of this fundamental right can also contribute to the isolation of other rights. Examples of such violations can be witnessed all across the globe. In case of online defamation, what can be done? We can try to defame it online. We can do harassment, terrorist activities if we leak all the data. All the data is transparent. They threaten public order and security. There is a global need to have views observed in online speech. So, it is to achieve a balance. We need to make a balance between conflicting fundamental values in public interest. We need to find a balance between private and data transparent. Then we can express in digital age. So, this is the concept of digital transparency. How important is this? Your OER, your Creative Commons licenses, your RTII, because of the promotion of transparency we have come here. But we also need to keep in mind that there is a balance between privacy and transparency. So, this was a new concept. I thought I would share it with you. So, thank you and don't forget to like and subscribe my channel Explore Education. Okay, then from myself.


We're live on J5JL, this is ThinkTech. And more specifically, this is Science at SOES, a program that has gone on a special series for the past semester. Courtesy Pete McGinnis-Mark, who was an emeritus science researcher at SOES at UH Manoa. And it was handled what amounts to a course over the past semester. And today we're gonna look back at that course and we're gonna look forward to that course too and talk to Pete about how it was. Pete, was it as good for you as it was for us? First of all, Jay, thank you very much for hosting me on my show. Yeah, it was great fun. I got to meet many of the graduate students within SOES and help them a little bit in terms of public speaking. And I learned a lot from it. I think the students did as well. And from my point of view, it's been a great success. You know, we did a movie about climate change and COVID, the connection last year. And one of the scientists who spoke on the movie was Angelique White. There were others too. And every scientist who spoke said that it was really important now for scientists to be able to talk to the public because in the past there hasn't been that much connection between science and the public. But now it becomes critical, do you agree? Oh, absolutely. And two of Angel's post-docs actually appeared early in this season of science at SOES. And I would not only say that, you know, the issues related to climate change is important that we communicate with the general public, but also just the wide variety of other research that is being conducted at SOES that affects everybody's lives here on Oahu, whether it's sea level-wise or whether it's obviously with Red Hill and the water system there. When we have a tsunami or volcanic eruption, not only are researchers at SOES taking care of the research side of it, but many of the decisions that the state is making are based on the results from SOES research. Yes, and this will be more and more in the future for sure as climate change gets worse and it is and it will get worse. So Pete, what is SOES? Do you call it SOES? There are those around who call it SOES that they're geographically minded. Oh, why is that shirt you've got there, Pete? What is that shirt? I've got my SOES t-shirt on in celebration of today's event. So if we have the first slide, SOES is the School of Ocean, Earth Science and Technology and it's a real gem at UH Manoa. Obviously people probably are not familiar but there's a large number of research professors and instructors, over 200 of them. More importantly, we raise about $130 million a year in federal grants and of course the follow through of those monies really helps the community in terms of sustaining parts of activities here on the Wahoo. There's a large number of graduate students and many of these students go on to be really world leaders in some of the activities. For example, in my own field, some of our former graduate students now fly cameras around the moon. So on the current Mars rover, we've had instruments going to Saturn and Jupiter as well. So it's not widely known but SOES has some phenomenal researchers and we also train the next generation. Our students have been highly successful for over 30 years now. And it's world famous, isn't it, Pete? Absolutely, yeah. In terms of the oceanography, we've got this 75-meter long research vessel which does deep water research. We're ranked probably fourth in the world as far as the kind of research we do in oceanography. Clearly, like for coral reef studies, 90% of all coral reefs in the United States are in Hawaii. So it makes sense. Our Institute for Marine Biology, for example, is a world leader in that area. I mentioned our own space research, you know, we're building our own satellites. Many of our students have gone on to work either with NASA or other universities and the list goes on and on. Our renewable energy, for example, Hawaii is a phenomenal place to test smart grid technology and new batteries, for example, because it's a small, self-contained island state, you can tinkle with aspects of the smart grid to really understand what's going on in a much better way than you could elsewhere. So yes, ecosystem dynamics, some of the tropical meteorology, deep blue water oceanography. Yo, SOSD is a world leader. We rank, say, in the top 20 in most fields in the United States and in some instances, we're in the top five. So it's a particularly good area of research to be in here in Hawaii. Yeah, silly you for retiring. You should have stuck around. Oh, no, I've got plenty of ideas. I haven't retired from research. I just have taken on an emeritus position and my current real interest is trying to get a program to prepare geologic maps for the astronauts when they return to the moon probably in 2026. So that's what I'm putting a lot of my effort into right now. Get a hurry. Yes, get a hurry. So Pete, let's look at slide two. And we're talking about the four departments in SOS. And let's talk about where the participants in the science and SOS program have come from among those departments. Okay. Let me just tell the viewers. I'm a geologist of sorts. And so my home department would be the Department of Earth Sciences which was originally called Geology and Geophysics. And so I know most of the students in that department and it's easier for me to persuade some of them to come on the show. I am absolutely hopeless at atmospheric sciences. And so I don't have the network of people that have come on the show from that department. I know individuals in the Department of Oceanography and in Ocean Resources and Engineering. But that sort of gives some idea of the diversity of candidate students that we could have brought on to the show that there's a wide variety of skill sets from numerical modelers. People would go out into the field. Some who work in laboratories. And we've got some really sophisticated instrumentation here at SOS, University of Hawaii at Manawa. That is world class. And so many people have different backgrounds and part of the challenge of this whole series Science at SOS was to ensure that there was this diversity of guests as well as getting the graduate students to appear. Many of them had not been on live TV before and so coaching them a bit on how to prepare materials as well as present themselves during the show was an important educational experience for them. Are the ones who were not in geophysics and planetology as nice as the ones in geophysics and planetology? I think we have a great bunch of students across the board in SOS. Many of them were super enthusiastic or a bit somewhat nervous to come on the show. It was a little difficult at times to talk to say an oceanographer who was preparing her next research paper to persuade her not to worry about preemptively talking about the results because each of these shows was very much sort of a top level discussion. Our goal was to try and inform the general public about some of the activities at SOS not to go into the details of the latest research paper. I know more of the students in earth sciences and could talk to them offline about the value of coming on the show but from all of the other three departments we had representatives and that was pretty good. You've been in and around the media for a long time on ThinkTec for example but that's only one. I know you put a lot of time into preparing and helping them prepare for these segments. Did you find that you were nervous Pete? Never crossed my mind. To be honest, this is so enjoyable and low-key. No, nerves never came into it. If you go to a congressional hearing and you're trying to defend the budget but you're part of NASA, that's when you get nervous. The first talk I ever gave was at Caltech at a symposium with 600 people in the audience. That was nerve-racking. With all due respect, a ThinkTec show is fairly low-key and very enjoyable. We want it to be that way. Let's go to slide number three which is a picture of all the guests that have appeared on the show, this very interesting group. I noticed, let me just take a closer look at that. Most of them seem to be women, Pete. Why is that? Two-thirds of the guests this semester have been women. Twofold, Jay. One is that there seems to be a trend within the school that more women are taking up graduate degrees than the guys are. So the population of candidates to come on the show is probably about 60% women, 40% guys. But the other thing was that they have a great little network. Mali came on the show in early February and she has lots of friends and she just went off and she told her friends, hey, this is a great fun thing to do. And it turned out that quite a few of her friends were women. And so that sort of encouraged them to come on the show and it made my life easier to just ask people who were almost volunteering to say, please bring me on the show when you get the chance. And so, yes, it was surprising to me as well but as I said, two-thirds of the guests were women but that's the way it turned out. Yeah, this was kind of a volunteer thing. In other words, they would come to you. You would go out and publish, you know, the fact the show was taking placement then they would respond and they would come to you. So this is their choice, be on the show. Absolutely, yes. The original idea of making it a course where they got university credit never actually panned out. First of all, we started very close to the start of the semester so we couldn't get this sort of thing accredited by the university. But the other thing is that it was much easier to persuade a student to come on the show just for one lunchtime presentation as opposed to committing to be at the same place at the same time for 15, 16 weeks. So the course idea I thought was interesting but it never really panned out. And as a result, the show never really exploited the idea of having real-time questions being sent in by email so that some things worked and some things didn't work for the show. Well, you know, as you said, we're low-key. We like to have fun, actually. This sounds like it was that and it's very important to us. Let me ask, you know, this reflects, at least in shows, an increasing number of women who are learning to be scientists, taking graduate degrees in science. I think most people walk around the street thinking, oh, a scientist. A scientist is usually a man. But that's no longer necessarily the case. And I want to ask you about science in general. Not only it's those, but nationally and internationally. Are we seeing new dimensions in the participation of women? Certainly there are more women getting into the fear of noun than there was when I was sort of just starting my work at UH Manoa. And also added diversity, trying to get Native Hawaiians involved, other minorities as well. There's much more awareness in trying to sort of make science embracing for all individuals. And for sure there are more women in my field. And I think that's also true, particularly in oceanography as well as in atmospheric sciences. And we'd start and see more women being given tenure track faculty positions and post-op positions. And so the pipeline for these other groups is starting to really produce some exciting results. Let me go to the next slide, Pete. This is the background work that you did for the show. And you did a lot of work to help them. And it's not only in the science, although partly it must be. It's in the presentation. Can you talk about what you did to help them and what these two views of the slide represent? Absolutely. So you're correct in saying that a lot of the work actually took place before the 30-minute show. And so I would identify a student guest. And about a week before they came on the show, I'd say send me some ideas on what you'd like to talk about. And on this slide here, we've got two different examples. On the left-hand side, illustrations of original drafts of ideas. And you're probably well aware that it's tough to read either small print or equations or something like that. So the original drafts on the left-hand side, one of the things I did was just to go through and sort of spiff up and simplify these illustrations. So the two on the right would be my take of what the student was trying to show, making them as large as possible and as simple as possible. Because we realized that not all the viewers are familiar with the electromagnetic spectrum, for example, or any of the other science. And that also, if we go to slide five, the next one, it wasn't just the individual slides to make them fairly simple. One of the other things which I really try to work with the students on was to have a coherent story. So we didn't want to have five or six or ten randomly selected slides. As we are doing today, you know, there's some method to my madness in terms of the the sequence in which material is presented. So you start off with an overview, you show a few examples of the science, and then hopefully draw to a conclusion. If we get enough time at the end, you ask the student, well, what are you going to be doing once you graduate or has this produced some exciting results which were a value to the state, for example. So the two things, one, making each individual slide as intelligible to the viewer as possible was time-consuming. But then also working with the student going back and forth, what order of the slides makes a coherent discussion for 30 minutes. And inevitably, some of them think they're going to present 20 slides. Thank you all for only three slides. Again, that timing has always been as you, as a host have found out, you know, pacing the whole presentation is really important. And getting that across the student, we thought this would be, say, the equivalent of an elevator speech, except it's 30 minutes. And so trying to instruct some of the students, some of whom are only in their second year of their PhD, others who are close to graduating, or we had a couple of post-ups on board as well. So, you know, there's a different skill level and knowledge based at the student's head. As we discussed earlier, it's important that scientists, including, you know, post-doc scientists, you know, know how to present. And it sounds to me like this was very valuable to the participants to hear from you about it, to work with you to establish not only, you know, legible, understandable charts and graphs, but also to put them in a storyline so they made sense. And Lord knows that's a valuable skill in defending and dissertation. It's a valuable skill in presenting to industry. It's a valuable skill in presenting to the 600 members of Congress that were listening to your remarks, some of whom I am certain I know they would have a lot of trouble wrapping themselves around the concepts you were describing. So, the presentation is very important. Yeah, yeah. And to do it without stumbling as you're talking and to sort of, if you've got individual points that you want to get across, how does the student put that in her discussion so that, you know, the viewer actually goes away realizing, oh yes, there's two or three bullets that are really important. Yeah, very valuable for them. But let's go to the next slide. This is slide six. This was some shows are really difficult to host. And I'd like to hear about those in particular. Oh, yeah, well, I don't wish to pick on Kelly too much, but as I said earlier, I'm a geologist. And so some of the students which I had on the show, they were doing research that I didn't actually understand. Kelly's was one of them. She was using the lasers to look at the potential health of vegetation. And this diagram here basically shows that the color of the vegetation changes if it's sick. And so how can you use the lasers to understand that. And it was like the blind leading the blind or most days. I was learning in real time something about the show. And the next slide as well, number seven, which Kay Takazawa had. Kay was talking about a topic called infrasound, which is sound waves that the human ear cannot hear because they're such low frequency. And for example, he presented a discussion on a media, which exploded over Siberia back in 2013. And the diagram at the top, the one with sort of yellow and red. That's so an acoustic sonogram of the different wavelengths of sound that could hear. And similarly the Tonga volcanic eruption, which took place in January of this year. Trying to understand how you interpret sound waves is something which I don't really do most days. And so trying to lead the student who some hopefully intelligible questions and to give them a chance to showcase the kinds of things which they have been studying perhaps for five years was one of the other challenges. What was that like for you, Pete? I mean, they always say that science should be cross-disciplinary, that every scientist has to at least know about other areas of science and who knows that may feed into, here's her specific area. So what was it like for you to study in one area and then you have to learn others? It's great fun. In retirement, you can afford to be a clock ticker or an armchair academic sort of thing. So it's a little bit outside of your comfort zone. I've got to admit. But on the other hand, it really engages the student because they have to make a greater effort to educate the person that they're talking to, let alone show something useful for the audience. In contrast, if we go to slide eight, which was Rose Gallo last week, Paul Rose, she's a second year graduate student working on Kilauea Volcano. And I let slip that, hey, this is something I've been working on myself for the last 40 years. Poor Rose. Paul Rose was having an interviewer who was asking a lot of historical questions about the Kilauea eruptions or sort of magma processes and as a second year grad student, she may not even have had classes in some of the material which I was asking. So it's a mix and match. Throughout the semester, we had some students who were quite senior and knew an awful lot about the topic. And it was almost even debate between the two of us. Ones like Kelly and Kay, I had no idea at all what they were talking about. And Paul Rose had an interviewer who had spent the last 40 years working on the topic that she's been involved in for 18 months sort of thing. I know that you didn't treat it as a formal course and therefore you didn't give grades, but doesn't that put you as the instructor at a disability when you have to give grades about a disparity of knowledge on your part and on their part when you have these various different subjects being presented? How would you have graded them, had you graded them? I think one would have to know more about the place of where the student is in his or her degree program obviously the postdocs are expected to be an expert in the field. A second year grad student naturally doesn't know as much as a fifth year graduate student and it's the same issue. In some of my other courses, I've had undergraduates sitting in with graduate students on a fairly high level course. Clearly you don't grade the undergraduate quite as tough as you would do a graduate student and in this particular case with the think tech shows, you would like the students who really have sort of worked very hard to get more credit as opposed to just recycling a conference presentation they gave last month. In general, how did they do it? I thought they were excellent and so none of them really stumbled. We didn't say anything unrepeatable on the air. We had a coherent discussion in each case. I was just delighted with the way the whole series turned out and I'm hoping that sometime in the future the pounds would be at so slowly worthwhile doing this again. What did you learn about how to do this? Because I've won a similar think tech series in the past, it was easier for me just to fall back into the same routine for the shows. What I did learn is that it's really helpful for the students to practice this kind of thing. On the previous think tech shows, one of my guests should never be on live TV before, never been interviewed, but she then graduated, moved to NASA, got our space flight centre and three months later had a national press conference where she was discussing some of the results. She said it was really helpful just to do the think tech. I think it really is valuable experience for the students for the interviewer. Who cares? I think you enjoy it. There's that. There is that point. What last thing I want to ask you about, you refer to the fact that this could happen, may happen, hopefully will happen again, and the powers in Manoa will have to make that decision and you'll have to be available for it and so forth. But when you do it again, will it be the same? Will it be different? What changes would you make? How would you organise it in an optimal way in a way that you see as the best possible parameters, the best possible configuration going forward? The main problem I've had has been on some occasions finding the diversity of student guests. We were biased towards the earth science students as opposed to atmospheric sciences or oceanography. I would like more preparatory work done so I actually didn't spend half the time the previous week on the show just trying to find a guest. I think the format is really pretty good. I don't believe that having it as a formal course where all the students have to sign up for the entire semester would actually work. The other issue, if it was a course, it would mean that you just had a random selection of students appearing one at a time on the show. I deliberately picked individuals who I thought had something interesting to say, which means it's not as helpful to the students who would need practice giving a presentation like this but may not have been the ones that were selected. Trying to be more inclusive of the types of students that we have within source so that everybody has this opportunity and hopefully gets the experience. That needs a bit of work. I don't think that doing it as a formal course would really solve this problem but greater diversity and helping the students who really are more self-conscious about giving presentations because they have to go away from the national or international conferences to give talks. That's more scary I think from talking to me for half an hour as well as when they go and get a job whatever if it's in academia or in business they still have to give presentations so this guidance on making it simple enough to be understood and having an idea of how to lead the story is really important. Striving to achieve those goals is really important. I can only say Pete it was great to have this series on ThinkTech. We love this kind of series about science and we love having you on. You are part of our family for many years and that is that we have always felt that science could be made public. To anybody who wants to watch they may learn less than a graduate student would learn but they would learn something they would be exposed, maybe they would make a decision a career decision based on what they saw and heard on the show and I think that's very valuable for the community. We have always encouraged scientists like you and your students you talk at their level and this goes way back in ThinkTech's history and you did and you would and you will and this is a great contribution to the community conversation and to the careers that come out of you age. Thank you for saying that Jay and I should have added presenting the science to the community recognising that SOAST is doing highly relevant research for the benefit of our community whether it's water or whether it's coral reefs or whether it's sea level rise or whether it's volcanic fog these are all topics which impact everybody here in Hawaii and I don't think that message gets out often enough to the community or a legislator so this kind of thing with ThinkTech has been really helpful from our point of view we'll come back again soon. I hope so. In the meantime thank you very much for doing this thank you very much for joining me on this retrospective here today and I hope that at some point in my life I will be able to get a SOAST shirt just like you have Pete. There it is SOAST at UH Manoa. Pete McGinnis. Thank you. Thank you Jay. Take care. Goodbye everyone. Thank you for watching. Thank you so much for watching ThinkTech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at ThinkTechHawaii.com Mahalo.


I ended up fracturing a rib from a chronic cough. I'm like, okay, what do we do to make sure this doesn't happen ever again? And she just prescribed me Kodi. And I was like, what am I gonna do after this?  Like it doesn't solve anything. We decided we were gonna solve issues which are really easy to understand. Bloat, calm, sleep. We actually are just coming off of our heartburn launch. So these are issues that like it's fairly straightforward. Like, oh, I deal with this. And it's all natural stuff. All natural gets you away from like chemically laden products, which you don't necessarily need. And when we say natural, we mean like what you see is what you get, kind of thing.


My name is Don Cripal, I'm currently Director of Eye Detect Services with the Capital Center for Credibility Assessment, C3A. Also a member of the Converis Technical Advisory Board for Eye Detect. I have 30 years of federal service, all of it in the Credibility Assessment arena, primarily in the area of polygraph but more recently other technologies as well. Of the 30 years, the first 20 years were spent with the Central Intelligence Agency as a polygraph examiner, researcher and manager. And the last portion is Deputy Director for the National Center for Credibility Assessment, which is the government's Center for Research and Education on all Credibility Assessment technologies. The first use of lie detection technology by the U.S. government was during World War II to screen German prisoners of war for law enforcement positions following. Shortly thereafter it was introduced with the Department of Energy to screen for potential security breaches and the handling of nuclear material and the development of nuclear weapons. In the late 1940s at least two intelligence services started using polygraph to screen employees and applicants for their agencies. Since that time the polygraph has grown in the U.S. government as usage so that there are now 27 federal polygraph programs and over 700 U.S. government certified polygraph examiners. They work in the area of counterintelligence, counternarcotics, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, security and law enforcement. I was first introduced to the technology at that time called the Ocular Motor Deception Test in the early 2000s when I was climbing Mount Rainier with Dr. Hacker and Dr. Kircher. It was an idea that they were formulating between the two of them and their interest was would the U.S. government be interested in this technology and I being a U.S. government representative at the time doing research for the U.S. government. I had two questions for them. One is it valid and two is it practical? And at that early stage they suspected that it was going to become valid when their research was completed and they did know that it was going to be practical based on the state of technology. In the subsequent research that followed over the next decade they did in fact find out that it was valid and through the development of engineers in the sensors and the display and in the protocol development it has turned out to be quite practical. At that time I was naive enough not to know what was involved in the technology and not knowing what the state of the research was. But I had great faith in Dr. Kircher because for the last 30 years the U.S. government has relied very heavily on his research for the development best practices among polygraph examiners in U.S. government programs. So there was a reason to have faith in Dr. Kircher's judgment that this might turn out to be a very promising technology. For those agencies who have not yet had an opportunity to see the eye detect system it is certainly worth your time to arrange a demonstration.


From the program, we are going to have three, and there is nothing you have to prepare for them, just popcorns and then watch the discussion and participate. So, without further delay, it's my pleasure to introduce Flavia Marchitti, who is currently a postdoc at the University of Campinas in Brazil. And today she's going to talk about the phylogenetic patterns and how to understand them using microevolutionary models. So thank you very much Flavia for being with us and for giving this seminar. Thank you Jacopo, thank you for the invitation and please check if the screen, share screen is working. Is it fine? So I'll be talking about the, just let me put you on the side here, sorry. So I'll be talking about these phylogenetic patterns using an evolutionary model. And I've been working with this topic in the last, in the past five years, but I'm very interested in many topics, explained and exposed here in this, in this winter school. And I'll be clear about that in the next slides. So, I'm very grateful to thank lots of collaborators and mentors that I had during my lifetime. The list is longer than, than you can see here, fortunately. And I'm also very happy to be, to have the finance of supporting grants in Brazil, and to have the opportunity to go overseas to study. And this is not a great time for science in Brazil and maybe not for many places around the world. So I'm very grateful to, to be financed by, by FAPAS pentups here. And so during this, this winter school, we've listened a lot about coexistence between different species. How can we have different species sharing resources and still coexist in the same area or in the same environment. And I'm very interested in this topic as well, but I'm also very interested in how these species form, how they appear the first time. And studying the species formation, how they, these species coexist. I've been working with geographic models of species, modes of speciation, and I've been working with neutral models to form a backbone to understand no neutral models, how we can learn from neutral models from the absence of any other forces to understand how these things will change these species formation. And, and the species diversity form patterns, for instance, patterns that can be observed in phylogenetic trees. We see different species forming and they are related to each other in such a way that can be described by these phylogenetic trees. And there are many forces shaping and process shaping these, these patterns that we observe. For instance, how species that could exist in the same area, how they diversify in different species. And what are the signatures that we can have, for instance, from species that don't share the same area. And with this, and the main line of my research nowadays, it's to understand how this micro, we can link the macroevolutionary patterns and the microevolutionary forces. This fuser gap that exists in the literature called the micro, macro gap. It's too hard for me to say that, but I think you got it. And when I talk about speciation, when we talk about diversification, usually we, we think about geographic configuration. We usually learn that species form when you have some barrier that separates individuals in two different areas. And these individuals accumulate differences. And once they are together again. They don't recognize each other as individuals of the same species. This is known as allopathic speciation, and usually is invoked to explain how the species form. And this is likely the process that happened with the chimpanzees and bonobos apes in Africa that were divided by the Congo river and speciate. And, but there is another form of speciation call it sympathetic speciation. So the sympathetic speciation happens, or it doesn't happen. It depends if it exists when individuals share the same area. And there's a debate in the literature if it is an important force for speciation to happen if it really exists. But I think before this discussion before this debate, we need to learn what are the, how it happens if it happens how it happens, and what are the signature it leaves for us to understand that it happened. So that's why I've been working with models in sympathetic speciation to understand how we can then deny this is the process that is shaping evolution in many species, or in many phylogenetic species. So one of the most well known sympathetic speciation models was proposed by Dickman the bad 1999 where they use it a model where they included assertive mating, which is the individuals, they choose sexual partners based on how similar they are. They also included genuine cage between the mating character and ecological character, and also included competition the model to understand if individuals sharing the same space could then split in different species. And they show that with these ingredients they could observe the species formation this bifurcations on the ecological character. So earlier than that, in 1991, Higgs and the Hida, also known as the Hida Higgs model, proposed that sympathetic speciation could happen under a neutral model. And maybe some of you will think how neutral model are users. They don't show us anything, but I think we can learn a lot from neutral models to then understand the neutral models. We don't like this model a lot. So the Hida Higgs model proposes that we can define individuals by a very large genome as large as infinite genome that have each gene, this genome can have positive one or minus one value in their positions. And they show, and I tell you how this population of any individuals can then split in groups of different individuals that we will call species here. And they do these require a simple thing that is a minimal similarity between the videos to reproduce. They do not prefer to reproduce with the most similar but they have, they must have a minimal similarity to reproduce. So what happens in this model is that we have two individuals that are a ploid individuals. So they have only one string that finds the genome, the genome, the genome is be ally because I told you, and we can compute the similarity between two individuals for the reproduction. So here individuals are often better. They have similarities in some positions here and here, but they have some dissimilarity in other positions for instance in here. But if they have a minimum required similarity for the reproduction, they can then mate and form an offspring for the next generation. So this offspring will have the alleles from their parents with a probability of a half it comes from parent alpha and a probability of a half it comes from the parent beta and eight of these alleles will have a chance of mutation, even by new. So here, for instance, the individual should be a positive one in this allele, but it should be a negative one in this allele but it became a positive one because of the mutation. And with this, I should stop the video first. Sorry. It's starting in a very, sorry, I don't know how to reproduce it again, but it's starting with a very high similarity. All individuals are very similar. So if we define with the sexual reproduction in with the mutation rate, we get individuals that have a lower similarity between each other than a given point that is defined by the, the, the minimal similarity that we define for the species. So these individuals that have dissimilarity between each other is that where we see a species formation. So we get individuals that cannot reproduce to each other.  We can observe that we will have groups of individuals that are dissimilar to each other and cannot reproduce to each other. We can observe the speciation with no geographic structuring here. In a symmetric mode of speciation. And, as you can see, the infinite genome is a very large cost paid here to have speciation under a symmetric situation. So something that started with Marcus again in the last, in the past 10 years, he decided studying this, the hidden Higgs model in a modified version. We try to work with a model where it's more real more close to real situation where genomes are no more infinite they are like finite genomes. So we have a genome that have like be lossy and exactly as in the same model of the Higgs we have two individuals that produce, they must have a minimum similarity for the reproduction. And there is a mutation rate that can change the offspring inherited allele. With this, Marcus shows that it's possible to have not infinite genomes and still have sympathetic speciation. So he shows that as we have a lower genome sizes for a fixed set number of individuals, we have to, we must have a lower mutation rate as well to have a speciation happening. And the other thing that is important is that for a given fixed mutation rate, as the genome size increases, the lower the number of individuals required to speciation to happen under a symmetric mode. And this is something important we show this is not it's not required anymore to have an infinite genome for for the sympathetic speciation to happen so it's more close to real work. And also, something that Marcus, Marcus decided study was to understand how, how we can enhance how can we force a speciation, putting some structure on the on the spatial on the spatial area where individuals leave. What about if we decrease the sympathy level somehow. And he has shown that if we put a radius around the neighborhood and in the neighborhood of a photo individual for the reproduction. Forcing this individual to look for a partner for a sexual partner around his radius, and we can change this radio for a small radius. Now can can we observe this to speciation happening so here we are decreasing the sympathy level, but yours to we still have individuals in the same in the same area. And he shows that when we have a mating ratios, smaller rating, mating radius for looking for the sexual partner, you observe that the genome size required for observing speciation is lower so we can model the sympathy somehow using small genomes, and some is structuring on the space for observing speciation. And that he shows that in a given amount of time. If the radius is small, we observe more species and species are more structure in the space than we if we have a larger radius. In the same time, observing this one. So, this was very interesting and very, very important to, to help us to develop the other research that we did in the past years. And one of them was trying to, to do that thing that I showed you before to look for some relationship between species, and how this relationship between species could be related to the geographic mode of speciation. So, we observed that species were forming through time in my spatial model. And we also the server that that I told you before, when we have a spatial configuration. We can observe that as larger is the, the radius of individuals to look for partners, the last species are format. So, when we observe a smaller genome. It takes a longer time to species to farm and find an equilibration of the number of species format. And this was very important and we were interesting and relating this. With the phylogenetic trees of the species that were formed in, in these special areas. And so we did, we developed methods to to construct the phylogenetic trees. And then we started this specification model. And this individual base of model. So, we developed a method where we could record all the station and extinction events, during the evolutionary time. And we could say which species came from whom and if, for instance, extinction events were happening, and how long it take to one species to form and then to form another one what are the, the times of this, of this lens of this branch lens. Developing this method we can also annotate more information during the evolutionary model and have a more concise information by the most recent common ancestor. And, and we observe that these two methods, which are the two phylogenetic tree he presented here by recording all this position events and annotating more concise information the most recent common ancestor. We could use information from the phylogenetic trees to compare these two methods. So, using, for instance, metrics to describe the branch lens. For instance, we have the, an acceleration metric or the, the gamma statistics that define us that the phylogenetic tree for us. And that describes to us that the phylogenetic trees has longer brands or smaller brands is more accelerated or this, this accelerated phylogenetic trees, and also information about the imbalance of this phylogenetic trees, how low is the phylogenetic trees and how caterpillar is the format of this phylogenetic trees. So using this, this metrics to describe the phylogenetic trees, we could see that annotating all the events are also annotating more concise information by the most recent common ancestor was very similar, we could use the most concise one. And here I show you very happily that this annotating all the events so having the true phylogenetic trees presents to us. The same using the most recent common ancestor present as the same trades out about the game is that it's statistics that is about the brand lens. And also about the balance of this phylogenetic tree so this methods are very similar and it helped us a lot to to get information and do simulations more fast. So, as I told you I was interested to understand how these radios of the mating range could change the phylogenetic trees. So, I would, I was interested in understanding how parapet can see petrification were different in terms of the phylogenetic trees formed after after the process. So, just reminding you, we observed that we would have less species under larger meeting radios, and also would take a longer time for small genomes to form the number of species that we observe in the calibration time. And something very interesting happened when we did the simulations after that. We observed that there is a signal here observed mainly in the radius, meaning the parapetrics in Patrick level of the spatial use. Where we observe that as more sympathetic is the phylogenetic tree the larger the radius. It means that more deeply are the phylogenetic trees they have this format here. These mother did the radios it means the market a Patrick is this position in our model, the more steamy are the phylogenetic trees. And we also observed that the genome size when we can observe here the same radius and different genome size that increases from here to here from orange to blue. We observe that it affects both the acceleration and the balance of phylogenetic trees. And we compare this to empirical phylogenetic trees adaptive and non adaptive phylogenetic trees. And we observe that we could have. We could observe some patterns in our data and observe me especially. This is these are the trees that we worked with. And we observe that the higher the genetic flow during this position time. The more balanced were the phylogenetic trees. Why are the last genetic flow happened during the dispensation time of this empirical trees. The more unbalanced were the phylogenetic trees. And this was very related to the radius of the mating range that we had here. So it seems. In our model we can observe some signatures of the geographic mode of speciation, and maybe there are some signatures out there and the phylogenetic trees that we have databases that we can relate to the geographic mode of speciation. So, I was very interested in this results that we have about the same but we and the para three, but I was also interested to understand okay, how can we tell about the barriers about islands about things if we have some barriers, defining our space and can we detect some something and in our phylogenetic trees. So, if we have a lot of three. So, going back more close to the real world, if we go to be a lot of three can, can we observe some pattern the phylogenetic trees. By the results that I've just shown you I was expecting that as we impose a lot of three, as we decrease the radius as we increase the structure in the space, I was expecting that we would observe that phylogenetic trees will become more steamy. So, I would expect that, given a low poetry speciation model, I would have more steamy phylogenetic trees. And we performed our model in this structure space and we observe that contrary that we will, of our expectations, you observe more balanced phylogenetic trees and I think here is where we can see it more, more clearly. We observe that groups of species, sometimes called deans were observable from the phylogenetic trees. And something very interesting could be detected when we put the balance of these phylogenetic trees, according to the number of species. It is well known that the balance of phylogenetic trees. It varies with the number of species, even in a in a normalized metric. So, when we did this, when we put the results of our simulations here, you observe that for a given number of species, those that were structured in more deans had a smaller balance or a balanced metric than those not structured in deans, just in one deans. And it was interesting to observe that for the Hawaii of some Hawaiian species, such as the Sylvio's Ward Alliance, the Tetragonapus spiders, and they stick to Lincoln, that are very, very splitted in different islands in the Hawaii. We could relate to that these species have been formatted in different deans. They did, and it could be detected by the balancing of the phylogenetic trees. However, for some other species, for instance, for the fish, for the diving fishes, we didn't observe the balance, we couldn't relate the balance of the phylogenetic trees with the many islands where they deformed. So maybe, and we explored it in the paper, maybe this information was erased from the phylogenetic trees. And contrary to our expectations, the alpha value that is related to the branch lengths of the phylogenetic trees didn't change a lot. It's true that the variation did, but we didn't see any change in the mean value of the alpha value. And so it was a surprising result. And when running these models, we observed that we are not only creating new species, we are also losing some diversity somehow. And the diversity was being lost by different methods. The most well known and expected one was the extinction. So some species were formed and passed at some time they would disappear as the number of individuals decreased. Other process such as reversal and fusion that I will call broadly as hybridization process. We observed that some species somehow were being splitted and then joined again in another species. So we were farming species but then we are losing them by hybridization. And together with the students we decided to study how frequent these things were. So these species could be defined somehow as the group of individuals that have some genetic flow between them. It is not necessarily a direct flow, but it must be some somehow some flow between different individuals, for instance, these one and this one, they have a genetic flow through this third individual here. So species could form and individuals were linked by genetic flow. And we observed that the hybridization could be defined that when we have a species formation such this blue one, but then reverse it somehow to the species that it came from. So this is the most typical hybridization process that is usually called fusion here. And the extinction is really at the disappearance of a group of individuals that by fluctuation they just disappear. So we could have in our melodramatic trees this three process, the extinction where individuals disappear just by fluctuation of the number of individuals and that species, the fusion where species is split into two and then fuses into one again. So the first one that requires two is the station process, which is easier to see here, and then a fusion between the oldest one with the new one. It's not a fusion between the newest species but a fusion hybridization between the most recent and the most. And the, or the species that originated these two. What we could see is that extinction happens all the time. And it's basically independent of genome size. We see some difference here we observe that smaller genomes have a lower extinction rate, but it's not so different as for instance fusion and reversal. So fusion and reversal, they happen this hybridization modes at this hybridization process happen all the time but fusion happens more and reversal gets an equilibration, and we observe that the fusion is more common as a smaller genome. And we also observed that, as expected the population size during the extinction happens more frequently in the small population sizes so just before the event happened the during if the event was an extinction. So fusion size is likely a small population size, while fusion and reversal, it happened and any population size that we had. And the extinction and fusion and reversal didn't change a lot on the brand land of the of the species that where that event happened more frequently. The extinction could happen in species that were very old or very new and fusion and reversal seems to happen more new species more recent species. So, I've shown here that the neutrality help us to understand how the genetic situation and population size situation, also known as genetic drift or ecological drift, cool it as to two structures of our genetic trees and how this extinction fusion and reversal could happen in during this process. And it helped us to understand to form the theory understand more broadly how we could then develop non neutral models and understand more understand better non neutral models. And in our group we did this in two different ways. And I will show you the results by Deborah principi, I think it's just participating here, and also work a work that is being developed by my students nowadays. So, we had the backbone to understand how genetic interactions, for instance, they meet the nuclear interactions to reflect on different genetic trees. And I, we've been study as well how the cooperation evolution is linked to the diversification or to the permission of new species. So I start with Deborah principi work. So they develop this very nice model, where the individuals they have, not only the normal genome that is called the nuclear DNA, but they also have the mitochondrial DNA. And usually the mitochondrial DNA is inherited by the mother. These DNAs, they must have some, some compatibility, the nuclear and the mitochondrial one, because the respiration a very important process is, it's a link between the proteins and everything that is necessary for the respiration process made by the nuclear and the mitochondrial DNA. So they must have some compatibility between them. And using this, the difference, the compatibility between these, these two DNAs that Deborah defined that the individuals that have a better smaller distance between these genomes or a more couple DNAs. They, they would have a larger fitness that should be fine by a function. And again, individuals can be defined in this space. And something very interesting that they observe that is that as we increase the force of selection. And, and the cell and the force of the selection is defined by the, how broad is this fitness here. So, as we increase the force of the selection on the genome and the nuclear and mitochondrial genomes. So here the larger, the smaller the value of sigma here the larger the selection force. And also, a species that were in the, oh, sorry, and the n i value here is when we have no interaction between the nuclear and the, and the mitochondria. And also they observed that extinction were more frequent when we had selection, but not exactly in the higher selection in the most for the greater force of selection. They observed that intermediate values of selection, provoked more extinctions and this model. And they also observed that the phylogenetic trees were affected by the force of selection between mitochondria and the nuclear. And so the comparing with when we have no interaction between these two genomes. When we have a selection for us the balance of the phylogenetic trees was the unbalanced metric of the phylogenetic trees was lower. And this is very interesting. And I think this is how we can summarize one of her results and when we, we compare the coupled part of the DNA. The mitochondria is strong selection and when we have no interaction between mitochondria and the nucleus, we observe that the mutation rate present on on the, on the genomes that were linked decrease the, the mutation rate of the mitochondria and not the nuclear DNA. And also comparing side the same individual, they observed that in the end the selection is decreasing the mutation rate is purifying somehow the DNA formed in this species. Something very interesting interesting about the mitochondrial DNA is that they, they can be used in biological environments and real environments for identifying species and this is something that they have shown that the mitochondrial DNA. It has a higher matching with the DNA of the nuclear part. And so someone could you could use the barcode the DNA the mitochondrial DNA for barcode. Yes, but it's not necessary and this is something very impressive. It's not necessary that these, these two genomes interact. Even when there is no interaction, there is a mutual ratio between these two DNAs. And just to to finish with my, my last work here. I've been working the last years to understand how cooperation evolves. And this is something impressive that happens in the most variety of species. You can observe for instance, I mean not to interact with each other. You can observe memos that cooperate with each other and understanding how cooperation happens in nature. Help us to understand how we can force cooperation in human populations. Maybe it's a dream, but it's something that we could say that we can learn for nature. So, usually the cooperation evolution is studied using evolutionary game theory. So an evolutionary game theory, we'd say that we have individuals that cooperate and some individuals that don't cooperate they're colored factors. And in a given amount of time, depending on the of the interactions between these individuals, we will observe that one of these strategies will be stable. And usually we stood how we, we studied systems where the defection is, is the stable strategy. And one of the most well known games is called it. It's represented by this by this payoff matrix, where we have the two strategies cooperators and the factors. And we say that a defector receives a payoff of five when interacting with cooperator, and it receives a payoff of one when interacting with another defector. And the cooperator here receives a payoff of three when interacting with another cooperator and the cooperator receives zero when interacting with the defector. And thinking that these columns here represent populations. We can see if the strategies in the rose can invade the populations defining the columns. And usually, and in this type of game call it the prisoners dilemma. What we observe is that independent of what happens the defection is the stable strategy, because the defector can invade population of cooperators and a defector can invade and be stable in a population of defectors. So this is the final result, usually, and something that has been studied in, I don't know, the last 3040 years, I cannot calculate things now, but in many years. And, and is how to how we can have the cooperation evolving situations where we were expecting the defection to be stable. And notebook and many collaborators have shown that the spatial structure can be an important force for establishing some cooperation where only defection was expected. So using this simpler form of the prisoners dilemma, where we have one here and the value that is varied here. No vote can collaborators have shown that even for values where we're expecting defection only, we could observe some cooperation, they think directions were defined in the space. So if the interactions and the payoffs gained by videos were defined by a neighborhood. And even for higher values of be here where only, again, only defection was expected, because of the spatial structure we could observe some, some information of this, this group of operators. And so we decided studying these in our model and our individual based models. So if we've included in the end of the genome is to trace the cooperation and the defection that defines the payoff that each individual gets and in their neighborhood. And using the same payoff matrix use it by Novok and collaborators. We observe that the spatial structure could form still form a species under this non neutral model, but under a game situation where individuals have some fitness because of interaction with others. The number of species farm is usually is usually is smaller. And the cooperation frequency maybe is not clear here because I've started in the number one and not in the number zero. We start with the same number of operators are the same frequency of operators under a neutral game or the absence of game or under neutral model. We observe that the cooperation keeps the same frequency for the, for the whole time, while for the game model, that is also special as Novok feed, we observe that there is a value of P, which defines values of P, where we were expecting defection but we still could observe some cooperation. And these values are different of those observed by Novok, and I'll explore more that we also observe that species could form so we could, we could draw their phylogenetic trees, and this is something very impressive. We observed a very different balance during the species formation, and also more accelerated phylogenetic trees. So we could detect somehow, as Deborah did in her work at that, when we include some, some selection here when we include some, some fitness here. There are things that can that are detectable in the phylogenetic trees. And so the phylogenetic trees here are reflecting how the spatial structure and cooperation evolution affect the phylogenetic tree. One thing we are still interesting is understanding how the absence of the structure can affect the, not only the, the, the formation of species but also the cooperation evolution. And so doing a greater neighborhood for the species to the mating range and also for computing the payoffs of these individuals. And Louise is developing this work, my student, I'm interested in, we are interested in understanding how species form, and this is not anymore a neutral model so species cannot form but we, we have many clues that they will form. And we are interested also if there are patterns in these species that are formed. Do we observe more defectors in some species, we observe my more cooperators in other species, and how these leave signatures in the phylogenetic trees. So this data conservative trade, can we relate the, the cooperation or a defection as an ancestral trade of a given, a given group of species here. And so this is the kind of thing we, we are exploring now. And, and in the end, another suit of mine will be studying how the cooperation and the hybrid, the cooperation can affect the extinction and hybridization rates. So, again, is it more frequent that cooperators will be extinct. Is it more frequent that hybridization happens in synaptic specification or in therapeutic specification. So this is the kind of questions that I'm, I'm interesting now. So, just to summarize, I think I have two minutes here. I've shown you that competition, or natural selection is not necessary for sympathetic specification. And this is a result of the Hida-Hins model. And sorry, I've shown you that even in finite genomes, when we have a given genome size, a given mutation rate and a given number of individuals. So we can have sympathetic specification, and especially structuring when we define a mating ratio, radius for, for the individuals we can have more species. We can find signatures of the geographic mode of speciation in phylogenetic trees. And I've shown you that allopatry and parapatry affect mainly the balance of the phylogenetic trees. And almost in the end, I've shown you that extinction and hybridizations, they can be characterized in neutral models, and we can then explore non-neutral models. And being interactions between the same, inside the same individual, or they can be through interactions between different individuals. But all this knowledge that we accumulated is said in neutral models has helped us to understand and to perform the non-neutral models. So, I'm ready for any questions from you. Thank you so much. Great. Thanks a lot, Flavia, for the nice talk. So we have time for questions. So there are a few from the chat, which I'll start fitting for you. And then if anyone wants to ask anything, can raise the end on Zoom. So Elvira is asking, do you use empirical phylogenies without dating to compare with the simulation of these models? The empirical data without dating to compare with simulation. No, it's with dating. And then there is Margaret, who is asking, I noticed you made use of the random forest model on the phylogenetic trees. I wish to understand why you made the choice. Also, did you try other models? What were your discoveries? Maybe I don't know what is a random forest model. I don't know. I don't know if maybe she can ask. Yeah, Margaret, please. Yeah, good afternoon. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, yeah. If you check, I don't know the slide number. When we were showing the inheritance from the phylogenetic trees is actually a random forest model that we used to model those trees. I don't know if I can go back to the slide. I can't really get the exact slide. Yeah, there's a branching that you had. Is it in the beginning? Yeah, kind of in the beginning. I'm sorry. Yeah, before the slide, yes. Backward. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah, here. Yes, exactly. Yeah. And this one? Yeah, and there's a place that is actually stated that we use a random forest model to actually get the models out. So I actually understand why you choose the random forest. Oh, so this is how we represented this method that we call it. Also known as the most recent common ancestor. And I don't know if it's exactly the same thing of the random forest model, but we, we get the individuals of our simulation, and then we trace back from which species it came from. So for instance, this individual here. Let's say the yellow one here, maybe it's easier. The yellow one here when we trace back this group of individuals that are represented by this, this guy here. And when we trace back, it came from my specification that happened just in the beginning. And the blue one here, we can see that the individuals of the blue one here came from yellow individuals. So when we joined information, so we have information based on this individual here that the specification happened two times before present time. So we can say there is a distance between the blue and the yellow one that happened two times before now. And this is just like following back the, the species that identifies the species of an individual and which is the ancestor of the species of that individual. It's the same of the random forest they didn't know. But all the same I've signed to a private message and I hope that because I want to know your, your choice of model there are actually several models. So, you know, generating the random, for instance, like the most accurate, to change what you do, but there are other, also other models that will be the choice. So, I just wanted to understand the choice of all this. Yeah, just one more thing maybe it can help you to understand what are, what are our choice. So, this, this information, so using all the events so recording all the events. It takes a lot of time and takes a lot of information that we need to record in our computers. So doing this help us a lot. But we also explored, for instance, genetic distances by different metrics. Normalize random forest. Yeah, that was why I have to ask why random forest. So we have the information of the genomes of the individuals we can do this genetic distance between the videos of different species. But we've noticed that when we compare to the real for the genetic trees that is made during the evolutionary process when we can record all the events. So, I'm sure that is the phylogenetic trees made by the most recent common ancestor were more similar to the real phylogenetic trees. That's why we decided to use this method to construct our phylogenetic trees. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Time for more questions. Since nobody's asking, I can ask my question. So, in one of the first plot you showed about the model where you compare with the empirical networks, you had adaptive and non adaptive networks. I mean, I'm not sure. I also say network, but it's three. Sorry. Yes. There is gene flow so they are also network in some sense. Yeah, yeah. So you have the adaptive and non adaptive. So I'm not sure how these two are classified, but I will that the word adaptive suggests that there should be some, at least, difference in the structure while it seems that you didn't see any difference between the two. So I was wondering. I can go back to that slide as well. But it's true. So when we decide to compare to adaptive and adaptive radiations below here. It was because we were evaluating our phylogenetic trees. Let me show here. We were evaluating our phylogenetic trees under this when when they reached the equilibration time. So we were interested in this radiation process when it takes longer time, you see that they don't form new species so the phylogenetic trees, you reach somehow some, some structure that is somehow fix it. So we decided to start how radiations could, how did, what are the signatures and during the radiation. And then when we go to the literature. You only find or mainly find adaptive radiation. Maybe it's because we believe that the main process happened happened under adaptive radiation. So usually when they say adaptive radiation they are informing us there is somehow some selection during the process. And the non adaptive radiation so this information of adaptive and non adaptive radiation were also gotten from the, got from the literature so as the authors inform us, oh it's adaptive it's not non adaptive. And if you see in our table. I mean, I should put in the presentation mode. We have more usually more adaptive and non adaptive networks. And it's true. We can see some structure here in the adaptive phylogenetic trees that are the triangle ones. That is given by the natural selection not by the spatial structure. It was interesting to understand and to see that maybe the genetic flow. That can be defined as lower high defines better how the structure of the phylogenetic more than if it's adaptive or non adaptive, maybe the genetic flow flow is the most important thing here. And we made this classification of the genetic flow based on the, how many islands or how, how was the structure doing the radiation process. Did I respond to your question. Yes, yes, no no it was, I mean, I think it was surprising that there was no difference between the adaptive and non adaptive right because they both match the neutral case. Yeah, and I think, because we have this information that make this space, the spatial structure is very important, we have more more. We are more prepared to evaluate the non neutral models understand what are the signatures on the non neutral models that are not given by space. Great. So, is there any more, any other question. Okay, so if not, let me thank Flavia again for the very nice seminar. And we are now going to take a break for one hour and a half so it's going to be a long break you can even take a walk out of the screen and go out. And we are going to start again at 345 with the second lecture by Alvaro Sanchez. So thanks to everyone. See you in our now. Bye bye.


Sam here with late sports cards. We're in one box of 23 Bowman Chrome baseball hobby for Pension C. Good luck here. Pension Let's do it buddy. There's still three orders ahead of you, Jim There's a top scroll Platinum anniversary light and then three WWE revolutions and then three Optic Asia team also not gonna take super long So yeah, keep Pacing and washing the office bloopers. Yes, sir Yes, sir base auto Justin Henry Malloy The Braves Jesus Kaba refractor Gunner Henderson Calling work now to 499 got you. Yeah, it'll be like another 15 or so. I would say CJ Abrams to 299 we sign hello Cunha Michael Arroy zombies checking in tomorrow fair dude fair fair fair Jim you're the West Coast Jim your East Coast, right? I think Jim's East Coast. Yeah Green Jackson holiday to 99 Serena and we sell made up Jim's East, I believe Gotcha, Jersey and J all day Kenner Delgado first base up Little Diaz there Nietzsche at Valdez Oh Casas jet Williams, blue is joy or tease to 150 Rookie for the Orioles Yeah, winners fastly approaching now To 199 Devis and De Los Santos Delgado and Aiden Sanchez. I'll do a fair break their pension. Thanks again for the support buddy. Get right out to my man


The interest that my father Stanley and my grandfather Clarence had in CCU went back to when it was Western Bible Institute in the 50s was based in some small buildings facilities in Denver and I think they really just did not have any room. My grandfather and father had bought a ranch in 1947 and so that the idea of donating some of the acreage from from that ranch was really a great solution to that problem to give them a lot of room to grow. Well I think that they really saw that presenting things with a biblical oriented approach was important to them. They would both be very excited in terms of how things have turned out and I think CCU really does have a role in presenting the Christian viewpoint on things. I've been challenged daily to think about God in different ways. Here at CCU they're serious about you as an individual not just a number. I would not be who I am now without my experience at CCU. I think that that he would have been really excited about Colorado Christian University and the way it's grown and developed and the way that he and my grandfather's gift was multiplied.


So we didn't see Jamar Chase in 2020 because he did opt out from the college football season. But when we saw him in 2019, he basically won LSE of their national championship. What's the outlook for him with that 2020 year not being within his data? So when it's all said and done, I think he's going to be one of the best prospects that my model has ever seen, which dates back to 2006. And there's really a simple way to think about Jamar Chase.  In 2019, he outproduced Justin Jefferson in the same offense, and Chase was a sophomore, and Justin Jefferson was a junior. And as we know, Jefferson just came into the league and dominatedly, he broke the rookie receiving record in the NFL. Now, I'm not predicting that for Jamar Chase, but it just goes to show how good he is as a prospect. He's got an elite breakout age, he's got elite production, and he's got pretty good size too. Given he plays more of this physical style, and given his metrics, I think that he comes pretty well to Justin Blackman. Now, I know that a lot of people will hear the name Justin Blackman, and they'll get turned off, but Blackman was really, really good. He just had off the field issues. So I think Chase is the real deal. I expect him to be an elite wide out in the NFL.