Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is continuously improving several aspects of our daily lives. There has been a great use of gadgets & monitoring devices for health and physical activity monitoring. Thus, by analyzing large amounts of data and applying Machine Learning (ML) techniques, we have been able to infer fruitful conclusions in various contexts. Activity Recognition is one of them, in which it is possible to recognize and monitor our daily actions. The main focus of the traditional systems is only to detect pre-established activities according to the previously configured parameters, and not to detect novel ones. However, when applying activity recognizers in real-world applications, it is necessary to detect new activities that were not considered during the training of the model. We propose a method for Novelty Detection in the context of physical activity. Our solution is based on the establishment of a threshold confidence value, which determines whether an activity is novel or not. We built and train our models by experimenting with three different algorithms and four threshold values. The best results were obtained by using the Random Forest algorithm with a threshold value of 0.8, resulting in 90.9% of accuracy and 85.1% for precision.

Abstract
As researchers are increasingly seeking tools and specialized support to perform research data management activities, the collaboration with data curators can be fruitful. Yet, establishing a timely collaboration between researchers and data curators, grounded in sound communication, is often demanding. In this paper we propose manual content analysis as an approach to streamline the data curator workflow. With content analysis curators can obtain domain-specific concepts used to describe experimental configurations in scientific publications, to make it easier for researchers to understand the notion of metadata and for the development of metadata tools. We present three case studies from experimental domains, one related to sustainable chemistry, one to photovoltaic generation and another to nanoparticle synthesis. The curator started by performing content analysis in research publications, proceeded to create a metadata template based on the extracted concepts, and then interacted with researchers. The approach was validated by the researchers with a high rate of accepted concepts, 84 per cent. Researchers also provide feedback on how to improve some proposed descriptors. Content analysis has the potential to be a practical, proactive task, which can be extended to multiple experimental domains and bridge the communication gap between curators and researchers. [This paper is a conference pre-print presented at IDCC 2020 after lightweight peer review.]

Abstract
Recent initiatives in data management recognize that involving the researchers is one of the more problematic issues and that taking into account the practices of each domain can ease this process. We describe here an experiment in the adoption of data description by researchers in the biomedical domain. We started with a generic lightweight ontology based on the Minimum Information for Biological and Biomedical Investigations (MIBBI) standard and presented it to researchers from the Institute of Innovation and Investigation in Health (I3S) in Porto. This resulted in seven interviews and four data description sessions using a RDM platform. The feedback from researchers shows that this intentionally restricted ontology favours an easy entry point into RDM but does not prevent them from identifying the limitations of the model and pinpointing their specific domain requirements. To complete the experiment, we collected the extra descriptors suggested by the researchers and compared them to the full MIBBI. Part of these new descriptors can be obtained from the standard, reinforcing the importance of common metadata models for broad domains such as biomedical research. © 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Abstract
In order to promote sound management of research data the European Commission, under the Horizon 2020 framework program, is promoting the adoption of a Data Management Plan (DMP) in research projects. Despite the value of a DMP to make data findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable (FAIR) through time, the development and implementation of DMPs is not yet a common practice in health research. Raising the awareness of researchers in small projects to the benefits of early adoption of a DMP is, therefore, a motivator for others to follow suit. In this paper we describe an approach to engage researchers in the writing of a DMP, in an ongoing project, FrailSurvey, in which researchers are collecting data through a mobile application for self-assessment of fragility. The case study is supported by interviews, a metadata creation session, as well as the validation of recommendations by researchers. With the outline of our process we also outline tools and services that supported the development of the DMP in this small project, particularly since there were no institutional services available to researchers

Abstract
To address metadata with researchers it is important to use models that include familiar domain concepts. In the Social Sciences, the DDI is a well-accepted source of such domain concepts. To create FAIR data and metadata, we need to establish a compact set of DDI elements that fit the requirements in projects and are likely to be adopted by researchers inexperienced with metadata creation. Over time, we have engaged in interviews and data description sessions with research groups in the Social Sciences, identifying a manageable DDI subset. A recent Clinical Psychology project, TOGETHER, dealing with risk assessment for hereditary cancer, considered the inclusion of a DDI subset for the production of metadata that are timely and interoperable with data publication initiatives in the same domain. Taking a DDI subset identified by the data curators, we make a preliminary assessment of its use as a realistic effort on the part of researchers, taking into consideration the metadata created in two data description sessions, the effort involved, and overall metadata quality. A follow-up questionnaire was used to assess the perspectives of researchers regarding data description.