[MUSIC] Hi, in this lesson, we're going to practice evaluating relevance. To recap, the four questions we need to consider to evaluate relevance are does the source meet the needs of your assignment? Is the information source written at an appropriate level? Is the information appropriately explored? And is the information related to your topic or question? Just as a reminder, this is our sample assignment question. The two articles will assess for relevance are Anderson's Unhomely at Home, Dwelling with Domestic Robots, and Noda, et al.'s Impact of robotic assistance on precision of vitreoretinal surgical procedures. Firstly, both articles meet all of our criteria for credibility. They have a scholarly purpose. The authors and publishers are authoritative. They are written for an academic audience. They are objective, they are accurate, and they're relatively current. But do they meet our criteria for relevance? Let's have a look. For both articles we can quickly answer the question does the source meet the needs of your assignment. As we've discussed, the sources are credible which is of central importance to university assignments. And as the question doesn't tell us to restrict ourselves to a certain source or kind of information, we can safely assume that they're appropriate for this assignment. However, for the other three questions, we need to look at them more specifically. We'll start with Anderson's Unhomely At Home article. The first thing we need to do is decide whether the information source is written at an appropriate level. Glancing through the first article, you can see difficult phrases, such as, the human use of [human beings proceeds as a matter of rapid statistical codification through the monitoring and regulation of reciprocal messages. This sentence would suggest the article is written for an audience of academic peers and thus, quite advanced. But it's still worth continuing to assess its relevant at this point as you might still understand some of the main ideas. If we then ask the question, is the information appropriately explored, we can see some of the limitations to the text. One way to answer this question is to read through some of the titles or subheadings and the topics sentences. Here we have the subtitle of over anthropomorphization, where we can find a review of previous literature on the subject of the fuzzy boundary between life and non-life. The next section, a little robot goes a long way, discusses Nintendo's Chibirobo game to highlight the unhomely biopolitics of technological lives. The final section, dwelling happening community, and ethics of animate belonging, is a discussion of the first two sections. Anderson sums it up himself when he calls Chibirobo a rather obscure title, meaning that the information contained is highly specific. Perhaps much too specific for our needs. The language and the references are also telling us that he's taking a very philosophical point of view. Now, let's consider the final question. Is the information related to your topic or question? Though the Anderson article has some cool insight into robotics and AI, his analysis is based on interaction as seen through a video game. It doesn't really say anything about jobs or employment other than discussing robots engaging in basic household chores. If we were writing a long essay, some of Anderson's overall philosophical ideas might be useful. However, the obscurity advanced in his topic, his philosophical approach and the specificity of his research mean we probably don't need to focus too much energy on this article. For the moment, I'll put this one aside, and have a closer look at Node et al's Impact of robotic assistance on precision of vitreoretinal surgical procedures. Going through these three questions again, we can start with whether the information source is written at an appropriate level. Again, a quick glance through the first page tells us there's quite a lot of technical language that's very difficult to understand. I have no idea what stabilize the manipulator tip just above the fundus means. This is technical language that's very discipline specific and may be a little too advanced, particularly, as I'm not a student in In this field. For the next question, is the information appropriately explored? The Noda et al article is a research article as demonstrated by their extensive method and results section and thus, focuses specifically on one piece of research on using robots in the operating theater. However, that doesn't mean we can't use it. There may be broader claims or information in the introduction or conclusion, or the more specific information could be used to provide examples or evidence in our essay. Finally, let's look at whether the information is related to the topic or question, and this is where we see a difference. The Node et al article doesn't directly say anything about employmrent either, but in the introduction, it does talk about how recently robotic-assisted surgery has broadened its application, and has been introduced into the surgical theaters worldwide. Importantly, the conclusions specifically states that the benefits of robotic assistance for the sophisticated vitreoretinal surgeries was confirmed. This is important from a technological, economic and social perspective because it provides evidence that robotic assistance is beneficial in this specific area of medicine. And we may use this as an example in our essay of an area where AI is increasingly being used to do a traditionally human task. The Node et al article therefore meets our criteria for relevance in a limited way, and might be good for the assessment. [MUSIC]
