Comunicação e trabalho para mudanças na perspectiva sociotécnica

Este artigo é uma reflexão, a partir do campo da comunicação, sobre a presença das tecnologias de informação e de comunicação no mundo do trabalho. Para cumprir esse objetivo, problematiza-se a atividade humana como atividade de comunicação e de trabalho. As tecnologias são produtos dessa atividade, inseremse no contexto sociotécnico contemporâneo e revelam contradições e exclusões. A título de contribuição, apresentam-se relatos de profissionais do campo da comunicação sobre as mudanças no mundo do trabalho dos comunicadores

Connections between the Sznajd model with general confidence rules and graph theory

The Sznajd model is a sociophysics model that is used to model opinion propagation and consensus formation in societies. Its main feature is that its rules favor bigger groups of agreeing people. In a previous work, we generalized the bounded confidence rule in order to model biases and prejudices in discrete opinion models. In that work, we applied this modification to the Sznajd model and presented some preliminary results. The present work extends what we did in that paper. We present results linking many of the properties of the mean-field fixed points, with only a few qualitative aspects of the confidence rule (the biases and prejudices modeled), finding an interesting connection with graph theory problems. More precisely, we link the existence of fixed points with the notion of strongly connected graphs and the stability of fixed points with the problem of finding the maximal independent sets of a graph. We state these results and present comparisons between the mean field and simulations in Barabasi-Albert networks, followed by the main mathematical ideas and appendices with the rigorous proofs of our claims and some graph theory concepts, together with examples. We also show that there is no qualitative difference in the mean-field results if we require that a group of size q > 2, instead of a pair, of agreeing agents be formed before they attempt to convince other sites (for the mean field, this would coincide with the q-voter model).

Inconsistent-tolerant base revision through Argument Theory Change

Reasoning and change over inconsistent knowledge bases (KBs) is of utmost relevance in areas like medicine and law. Argumentation may bring the possibility to cope with both problems. Firstly, by constructing an argumentation framework (AF) from the inconsistent KB, we can decide whether to accept or reject a certain claim through the interplay among arguments and counterarguments. Secondly, by handling dynamics of arguments of the AF, we might deal with the dynamics of knowledge of the underlying inconsistent KB. Dynamics of arguments has recently attracted attention and although some approaches have been proposed, a full axiomatization within the theory of belief revision was still missing. A revision arises when we want the argumentation semantics to accept an argument. Argument Theory Change (ATC) encloses the revision operators that modify the AF by analyzing dialectical trees-arguments as nodes and attacks as edges-as the adopted argumentation semantics. In this article, we present a simple approach to ATC based on propositional KBs. This allows to manage change of inconsistent KBs by relying upon classical belief revision, although contrary to it, consistency restoration of the KB is avoided. Subsequently, a set of rationality postulates adapted to argumentation is given, and finally, the proposed model of change is related to the postulates through the corresponding representation theorem. Though we focus on propositional logic, the results can be easily extended to more expressive formalisms such as first-order logic and description logics, to handle evolution of ontologies.