Teamwork.com is an Irish, privately owned, web-based software company headquartered in Cork, Ireland. Teamwork creates task management and team collaboration software. Founded in 2007, as of 2016 the company stated that its software was in use by over 370,000 organisations worldwide (including Disney, Spotify and HP), and that it had over 2.4m users. == History == Peter Coppinger and Dan Mackey founded a company, Digital Crew, in 2007. This company built websites, intranets and custom web-based solutions for clients in Cork, Ireland. Frustrated by whiteboards and software management tools, Coppinger wanted a software system that would help manage client projects and which would be easy to use and generic enough to be used by different types of companies. Originally 37signals Basecamp users themselves, Coppinger and Mackey were frustrated by the limited feature set, and by Basecamp's apparent inaction on their feedback. In October 2007, Coppinger and Mackey launched Teamwork Project Manager, nicknamed TeamworkPM. In March 2015, this was renamed as Teamwork Projects. In 2014, after two years of negotiations, TeamworkPM bought the domain name 'Teamwork.com' for US$675,000 (€500,000). At the time this was one of the most expensive domain name purchases by an Irish company, and involved the transfer of a domain name which had been dormant since it was first acquired by the original owner in 1999. In 2015, Teamwork.com was named by Gartner to be one of their "Cool Vendors" in the Program and Portfolio Management Category. This was followed by the launch of a new real-time messaging product, Teamwork Chat, in January 2015. In June 2015, the company announced a drive to recruit for 40 positions by the end of the year. This was followed by the announcement that the company was investing more than €1 million in a new office, and had leased office space in Park House, Blackpool. In June 2016, Teamwork.com undertook a further recruitment drive to entice developers to Cork. In July 2021, the company announced that it had raised an investment of $70 million (€59.1 million) from venture capital firm Bregal Milestone to fund further growth. == Products == Teamwork markets a number of cloud-based applications, including Teamwork, Teamwork Desk, Teamwork Spaces, Teamwork CRM and Teamwork Chat. Teamwork was launched on 4 October 2007, at which time it had time management, milestone management, file sharing, time tracking, and messaging features. Teamwork's platform reportedly integrates with martech software like HubSpot, as well as other productivity tools like Slack, G Suite, MS Teams, Zapier, Dropbox and QuickBooks. == Awards == In 2016, Teamwork was awarded Cork's Best SME in the Cork Chamber of Commerce "Company of the Year" awards. In 2016, Teamwork was named number 7 in Deloitte's Fast 50 tech companies hit €1.6bn turnover. In 2015, Teamwork was identified as a Gartner "Cool Vendor" in the Program and Portfolio Management Category.
Concept mining
Concept mining is an activity that results in the extraction of concepts from artifacts. Solutions to the task typically involve aspects of artificial intelligence and statistics, such as data mining and text mining. Because artifacts are typically a loosely structured sequence of words and other symbols (rather than concepts), the problem is nontrivial, but it can provide powerful insights into the meaning, provenance and similarity of documents. == Methods == Traditionally, the conversion of words to concepts has been performed using a thesaurus, and for computational techniques the tendency is to do the same. The thesauri used are either specially created for the task, or a pre-existing language model, usually related to Princeton's WordNet. The mappings of words to concepts are often ambiguous. Typically each word in a given language will relate to several possible concepts. Humans use context to disambiguate the various meanings of a given piece of text, where available machine translation systems cannot easily infer context. For the purposes of concept mining, however, these ambiguities tend to be less important than they are with machine translation, for in large documents the ambiguities tend to even out, much as is the case with text mining. There are many techniques for disambiguation that may be used. Examples are linguistic analysis of the text and the use of word and concept association frequency information that may be inferred from large text corpora. Recently, techniques that base on semantic similarity between the possible concepts and the context have appeared and gained interest in the scientific community. == Applications == === Detecting and indexing similar documents in large corpora === One of the spin-offs of calculating document statistics in the concept domain, rather than the word domain, is that concepts form natural tree structures based on hypernymy and meronymy. These structures can be used to generate simple tree membership statistics, that can be used to locate any document in a Euclidean concept space. If the size of a document is also considered as another dimension of this space then an extremely efficient indexing system can be created. This technique is currently in commercial use locating similar legal documents in a 2.5 million document corpus. === Clustering documents by topic === Standard numeric clustering techniques may be used in "concept space" as described above to locate and index documents by the inferred topic. These are numerically far more efficient than their text mining cousins, and tend to behave more intuitively, in that they map better to the similarity measures a human would generate.
Feature hashing
In machine learning, feature hashing, also known as the hashing trick (by analogy to the kernel trick), is a fast and space-efficient way of vectorizing features, i.e. turning arbitrary features into indices in a vector or matrix. It works by applying a hash function to the features and using their hash values as indices directly (after a modulo operation), rather than looking the indices up in an associative array. In addition to its use for encoding non-numeric values, feature hashing can also be used for dimensionality reduction. This trick is often attributed to Weinberger et al. (2009), but there exists a much earlier description of this method published by John Moody in 1989. == Motivation == === Motivating example === In a typical document classification task, the input to the machine learning algorithm (both during learning and classification) is free text. From this, a bag of words (BOW) representation is constructed: the individual tokens are extracted and counted, and each distinct token in the training set defines a feature (independent variable) of each of the documents in both the training and test sets. Machine learning algorithms, however, are typically defined in terms of numerical vectors. Therefore, the bags of words for a set of documents is regarded as a term-document matrix where each row is a single document, and each column is a single feature/word; the entry i, j in such a matrix captures the frequency (or weight) of the j'th term of the vocabulary in document i. (An alternative convention swaps the rows and columns of the matrix, but this difference is immaterial.) Typically, these vectors are extremely sparse—according to Zipf's law. The common approach is to construct, at learning time or prior to that, a dictionary representation of the vocabulary of the training set, and use that to map words to indices. Hash tables and tries are common candidates for dictionary implementation. E.g., the three documents John likes to watch movies. Mary likes movies too. John also likes football. can be converted, using the dictionary to the term-document matrix ( John likes to watch movies Mary too also football 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{pmatrix}{\textrm {John}}&{\textrm {likes}}&{\textrm {to}}&{\textrm {watch}}&{\textrm {movies}}&{\textrm {Mary}}&{\textrm {too}}&{\textrm {also}}&{\textrm {football}}\\1&1&1&1&1&0&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0&1&1&1&0&0\\1&1&0&0&0&0&0&1&1\end{pmatrix}}} (Punctuation was removed, as is usual in document classification and clustering.) The problem with this process is that such dictionaries take up a large amount of storage space and grow in size as the training set grows. On the contrary, if the vocabulary is kept fixed and not increased with a growing training set, an adversary may try to invent new words or misspellings that are not in the stored vocabulary so as to circumvent a machine learned filter. To address this challenge, Yahoo! Research attempted to use feature hashing for their spam filters. Note that the hashing trick isn't limited to text classification and similar tasks at the document level, but can be applied to any problem that involves large (perhaps unbounded) numbers of features. === Mathematical motivation === Mathematically, a token is an element t {\displaystyle t} in a finite (or countably infinite) set T {\displaystyle T} . Suppose we only need to process a finite corpus, then we can put all tokens appearing in the corpus into T {\displaystyle T} , meaning that T {\displaystyle T} is finite. However, suppose we want to process all possible words made of the English letters, then T {\displaystyle T} is countably infinite. Most neural networks can only operate on real vector inputs, so we must construct a "dictionary" function ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . When T {\displaystyle T} is finite, of size | T | = m ≤ n {\displaystyle |T|=m\leq n} , then we can use one-hot encoding to map it into R n {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{n}} . First, arbitrarily enumerate T = { t 1 , t 2 , . . , t m } {\displaystyle T=\{t_{1},t_{2},..,t_{m}\}} , then define ϕ ( t i ) = e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{i})=e_{i}} . In other words, we assign a unique index i {\displaystyle i} to each token, then map the token with index i {\displaystyle i} to the unit basis vector e i {\displaystyle e_{i}} . One-hot encoding is easy to interpret, but it requires one to maintain the arbitrary enumeration of T {\displaystyle T} . Given a token t ∈ T {\displaystyle t\in T} , to compute ϕ ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)} , we must find out the index i {\displaystyle i} of the token t {\displaystyle t} . Thus, to implement ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } efficiently, we need a fast-to-compute bijection h : T → { 1 , . . . , m } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,m\}} , then we have ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In fact, we can relax the requirement slightly: It suffices to have a fast-to-compute injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} , then use ϕ ( t ) = e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)=e_{h(t)}} . In practice, there is no simple way to construct an efficient injection h : T → { 1 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,...,n\}} . However, we do not need a strict injection, but only an approximate injection. That is, when t ≠ t ′ {\displaystyle t\neq t'} , we should probably have h ( t ) ≠ h ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle h(t)\neq h(t')} , so that probably ϕ ( t ) ≠ ϕ ( t ′ ) {\displaystyle \phi (t)\neq \phi (t')} . At this point, we have just specified that h {\displaystyle h} should be a hashing function. Thus we reach the idea of feature hashing. == Algorithms == === Feature hashing (Weinberger et al. 2009) === The basic feature hashing algorithm presented in (Weinberger et al. 2009) is defined as follows. First, one specifies two hash functions: the kernel hash h : T → { 1 , 2 , . . . , n } {\displaystyle h:T\to \{1,2,...,n\}} , and the sign hash ζ : T → { − 1 , + 1 } {\displaystyle \zeta :T\to \{-1,+1\}} . Next, one defines the feature hashing function: ϕ : T → R n , ϕ ( t ) = ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t)=\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}} Finally, extend this feature hashing function to strings of tokens by ϕ : T ∗ → R n , ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ϕ ( t j ) {\displaystyle \phi :T^{}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n},\quad \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\phi (t_{j})} where T ∗ {\displaystyle T^{}} is the set of all finite strings consisting of tokens in T {\displaystyle T} . Equivalently, ϕ ( t 1 , . . . , t k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ζ ( t j ) e h ( t j ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ j : h ( t j ) = i ζ ( t j ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi (t_{1},...,t_{k})=\sum _{j=1}^{k}\zeta (t_{j})e_{h(t_{j})}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{j:h(t_{j})=i}\zeta (t_{j})\right)e_{i}} ==== Geometric properties ==== We want to say something about the geometric property of ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , but T {\displaystyle T} , by itself, is just a set of tokens, we cannot impose a geometric structure on it except the discrete topology, which is generated by the discrete metric. To make it nicer, we lift it to T → R T {\displaystyle T\to \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , and lift ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } from ϕ : T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :T\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} to ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\mathbb {R} ^{T}\to \mathbb {R} ^{n}} by linear extension: ϕ ( ( x t ) t ∈ T ) = ∑ t ∈ T x t ζ ( t ) e h ( t ) = ∑ i = 1 n ( ∑ t : h ( t ) = i x t ζ ( t ) ) e i {\displaystyle \phi ((x_{t})_{t\in T})=\sum _{t\in T}x_{t}\zeta (t)e_{h(t)}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(\sum _{t:h(t)=i}x_{t}\zeta (t)\right)e_{i}} There is an infinite sum there, which must be handled at once. There are essentially only two ways to handle infinities. One may impose a metric, then take its completion, to allow well-behaved infinite sums, or one may demand that nothing is actually infinite, only potentially so. Here, we go for the potential-infinity way, by restricting R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} to contain only vectors with finite support: ∀ ( x t ) t ∈ T ∈ R T {\displaystyle \forall (x_{t})_{t\in T}\in \mathbb {R} ^{T}} , only finitely many entries of ( x t ) t ∈ T {\displaystyle (x_{t})_{t\in T}} are nonzero. Define an inner product on R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} in the obvious way: ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ = { 1 , if t = t ′ , 0 , else. ⟨ x , x ′ ⟩ = ∑ t , t ′ ∈ T x t x t ′ ⟨ e t , e t ′ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle ={\begin{cases}1,{\text{ if }}t=t',\\0,{\text{ else.}}\end{cases}}\quad \langle x,x'\rangle =\sum _{t,t'\in T}x_{t}x_{t'}\langle e_{t},e_{t'}\rangle } As a side note, if T {\displaystyle T} is infinite, then the inner product space R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} is not complete. Taking its completion would get us to a Hilbert space, which allows well-behaved infinite sums. Now we have an inner product space, with enough structure to describe the geometry of the feature hashing function ϕ : R T → R n {\displaystyle \phi :\ma
Emergent algorithm
An emergent algorithm is an algorithm that exhibits emergent behavior. In essence an emergent algorithm implements a set of simple building block behaviors that when combined exhibit more complex behaviors. One example of this is the implementation of fuzzy motion controllers used to adapt robot movement in response to environmental obstacles. An emergent algorithm has the following characteristics: it achieves predictable global effects it does not require global visibility it does not assume any kind of centralized control it is self-stabilizing Other examples of emergent algorithms and models include cellular automata, artificial neural networks and swarm intelligence systems (ant colony optimization, bees algorithm, etc.).
Principle of rationality
The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.
Co-occurrence matrix
A co-occurrence matrix or co-occurrence distribution (also referred to as : gray-level co-occurrence matrices GLCMs) is a matrix that is defined over an image to be the distribution of co-occurring pixel values (grayscale values, or colors) at a given offset. It is used as an approach to texture analysis with various applications especially in medical image analysis. == Method == Given a grey-level image I {\displaystyle I} , co-occurrence matrix computes how often pairs of pixels with a specific value and offset occur in the image. The offset, ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle (\Delta x,\Delta y)} , is a position operator that can be applied to any pixel in the image (ignoring edge effects): for instance, ( 1 , 2 ) {\displaystyle (1,2)} could indicate "one down, two right". An image with p {\displaystyle p} different pixel values will produce a p × p {\displaystyle p\times p} co-occurrence matrix, for the given offset. The ( i , j ) th {\displaystyle (i,j)^{\text{th}}} value of the co-occurrence matrix gives the number of times in the image that the i th {\displaystyle i^{\text{th}}} and j th {\displaystyle j^{\text{th}}} pixel values occur in the relation given by the offset. For an image with p {\displaystyle p} different pixel values, the p × p {\displaystyle p\times p} co-occurrence matrix C is defined over an n × m {\displaystyle n\times m} image I {\displaystyle I} , parameterized by an offset ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle (\Delta x,\Delta y)} , as: C Δ x , Δ y ( i , j ) = ∑ x = 1 n ∑ y = 1 m { 1 , if I ( x , y ) = i and I ( x + Δ x , y + Δ y ) = j 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle C_{\Delta x,\Delta y}(i,j)=\sum _{x=1}^{n}\sum _{y=1}^{m}{\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}I(x,y)=i{\text{ and }}I(x+\Delta x,y+\Delta y)=j\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} where: i {\displaystyle i} and j {\displaystyle j} are the pixel values; x {\displaystyle x} and y {\displaystyle y} are the spatial positions in the image I; the offsets ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle (\Delta x,\Delta y)} define the spatial relation for which this matrix is calculated; and I ( x , y ) {\displaystyle I(x,y)} indicates the pixel value at pixel ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} . The 'value' of the image originally referred to the grayscale value of the specified pixel, but could be anything, from a binary on/off value to 32-bit color and beyond. (Note that 32-bit color will yield a 232 × 232 co-occurrence matrix!) Co-occurrence matrices can also be parameterized in terms of a distance, d {\displaystyle d} , and an angle, θ {\displaystyle \theta } , instead of an offset ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle (\Delta x,\Delta y)} . Any matrix or pair of matrices can be used to generate a co-occurrence matrix, though their most common application has been in measuring texture in images, so the typical definition, as above, assumes that the matrix is an image. It is also possible to define the matrix across two different images. Such a matrix can then be used for color mapping. == Aliases == Co-occurrence matrices are also referred to as: GLCMs (gray-level co-occurrence matrices) GLCHs (gray-level co-occurrence histograms) spatial dependence matrices == Application to image analysis == Whether considering the intensity or grayscale values of the image or various dimensions of color, the co-occurrence matrix can measure the texture of the image. Because co-occurrence matrices are typically large and sparse, various metrics of the matrix are often taken to get a more useful set of features. Features generated using this technique are usually called Haralick features, after Robert Haralick. Texture analysis is often concerned with detecting aspects of an image that are rotationally invariant. To approximate this, the co-occurrence matrices corresponding to the same relation, but rotated at various regular angles (e.g. 0, 45, 90, and 135 degrees), are often calculated and summed. Texture measures like the co-occurrence matrix, wavelet transforms, and model fitting have found application in medical image analysis in particular. == Other applications == Co-occurrence matrices are also used for words processing in natural language processing (NLP).
Semantic analysis (machine learning)
In machine learning, semantic analysis of a text corpus is the task of building structures that approximate concepts from a large set of documents. It generally does not involve prior semantic understanding of the documents. Semantic analysis strategies include: Metalanguages based on first-order logic, which can analyze the speech of humans. Understanding the semantics of a text is symbol grounding: if language is grounded, it is equal to recognizing a machine-readable meaning. For the restricted domain of spatial analysis, a computer-based language understanding system was demonstrated. Latent semantic analysis (LSA), a class of techniques where documents are represented as vectors in a term space. A prominent example is probabilistic latent semantic analysis (PLSA). Latent Dirichlet allocation, which involves attributing document terms to topics. n-grams and hidden Markov models, which work by representing the term stream as a Markov chain, in which each term is derived from preceding terms. == Stochastic semantic analysis ==