Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Matthew Prewitt
dblp:410/2311
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper |
Computational social science and digital humanities · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Computational social science and digital humanities
AI governance |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Collective Bargaining in the Information Economy Can Address AI-Driven Power Concentration · NeurIPS 2025 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
federated data management · 0.9explainable data value estimation · 0.9
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Collective Bargaining in the Information Economy Can Address AI-Driven Power ConcentrationabstractThis position paper argues that there is an urgent need to restructure markets for the information that goes into AI systems. Specifically, small-to-medium sized producers of information (such as journalists, news organizations, researchers, and creative professionals) need to be able to appoint representatives who can carry out "collective bargaining" with AI product builders in order to receive a reasonable terms and a fair return on the informational value they contribute. Obstacles to this market structure can be removed through technical work that facilitates collective bargaining in the information economy (e.g., explainable data value estimation and federated data management tools) and regulatory/policy interventions (e.g., support for trusted data intermediary organizations that represent guilds or syndicates of information producers). We argue that without collective bargaining in the information economy, AI will exacerbate a large-scale "information market failure" that will lead not only to undesirable concentration of capital, but also to a potential "ecological collapse" in the informational commons. On the other hand, collective bargaining in the information economy can create market conditions necessary for a pro-social AI future. We provide concrete actions that can be taken to support a coalition-based approach to achieve this. Nicholas Vincent, Matthew Prewitt, Hanlin Li 0001 |
NeurIPS | 2 |