 Thank you all for coming. My name is Barbara Rechenbach, and I'm the Interim Associate University Librarian for Collections and Services at Columbia. And I'm just going to do a few framing remarks for the presentation today to kick it off, so if you want to advance. So anyone who's studied literature or history will remember the late 19th century debate about the woman question. This phrase, the woman question, was used in connection with the social change in the latter half of the 19th century, which questioned the roles of women. And it would sort of dominated cultural discussions in newspapers and intellectual circles. Something wasn't working, and there was a desire to make changes to address this question. In planning for the session, all of us had a call, and I couldn't help but think that we're in the moment of the e-book question. Something isn't working. We are in a moment of social change and reading habits around digital scholarly monographs. And this session acknowledges that the digital electronic monograph is not working from either the perspective of the author or creator or the user. The goal of this session is to bring multiple perspectives together to offer potential solutions for this problem. Alex Humphries, head of JSTOR Labs, and I will talk about a collaborative project between JSTOR and Columbia to reimagine the monograph and the process we use to do that work. And then we'll be followed by Lisa Macklin, director of scholarly communications at Emory, and Charles Watkinson, the director of the University of Michigan Press and AUL for publishing at the University of Michigan. And they will address how publishers can best support and sustain digital scholarship through a publishing platform optimized for digital scholarship. So with that, I'm going to hand it off to Alex. Do you want to? Okay, so as Barbara said, I run the JSTOR Labs, which the JSTOR Labs is a fairly small team. There's about three of us, three to four or five, depending on the time of day. And what we do is we test out new ideas for JSTOR. We then share that work with the community. Those ideas are proofs of concept. They're prototypes that we do really quickly. Ideally, we're possible with a partner, either a library or a publisher or scholar, and then share what we've learned. And our process is inspired by design thinking and lean startup and new product design approaches. We're essentially an agile scrum team in operation. This is the overall process, but rather than sort of step you through it and sort of talk about the questions that we ask and how they change during the rapid iterations of a project, the easiest way to see it and to understand it is to see it. So we have a little video of the project Barbara mentioned, reimagining the monograph, which we'll dive into a little bit afterwards. So now we're going to see if videos work and sound works and all that kind of complicated things that labs people like to do. At Columbia University at Butler Library, where we've been working with our partners to re-enact the monograph. Monographs are long form scholarly arguments of books that you find in the stacks here at Columbia Library. We have a theory hypothesis that some of the value in those books is getting lost as they migrate to a digital world where people are doing research digitally. And this project is about working with the community to imagine and build new ways of unleashing those things that are lost and making them even more powerful. The process we've taken for this project is inspired by the lean startup and design thinking communities. It's geared towards rapid prototyping, learning as quickly as possible and getting ideas and thoughts in front of users and getting their feedback in order to end up with a final site or application that delights the future. The Columbia University Library has for several years has had a real interest in e-books and in their views and in the platforms that our users are engaging with. So when JSTOR approached us about this possibility, we knew it would be something our users would value and that our staff could really engage with in thinking how best ways to serve users in the future around the world. We started with a series of six user ethnographies where we watch individual users using books and monographs and their native habitats. And we learned from that to see where they're struggling with their context or et cetera. We then held a workshop where we brought members of the community along with the JSTOR Labs team where we brainstormed what the typical monograph reader or scholarly book researcher, what their pains were, what their gain or what the success looked like for them and what are their tasks. The next day, we drew up some of those ideas to figure out where the biggest opportunity was. And based on that input, we chose one of the ideas and worked to build it. And then in a final week at Columbia, we honed the idea with interviews with users every day. Some of those were formal half-hour interviews and some of those were what we called gorilla testing where we set up a desk out in front of the Columbia Library and asked people to give us 15 minutes. It's a great way of getting lots of feedback really quickly. The outcome of this project, re-imagining the monograph is first and foremost the prototype, the topic graph, which is a website that allows users and researchers to see and visualize all of the topics contained in long-form scholarly argument. It also will include a white paper. We're writing a white paper that will share what we've learned during the research and at the workshop with the community and will open source all of the code that is powered to prototype so that others can benefit more from it. The great thing about videos is I don't actually have to say nearly as much as, I mean, that was basically, I'm done now. Any questions? You're not that lucky. So what I'll do is I'll dive into some of the details that that little video skipped over and then we can go from there. So I mentioned at the very start that this, we work rapidly. I think it's helpful to have an understanding of how rapid that is. So the bulk of the project, we did the user research, sitting with those six historians in August and September, but the real meat of the project happened, all of it happened after I submitted the proposal to give this presentation. So that was due in some time in October and a week later we held the workshop where we brainstormed a thousand ideas to reimagine the monograph and then over the following month, month and a half we built that topic graph, which I'll show you and here we are. So it's a bit of a leap of faith that we'd have something or I'd just be presenting a terrible story. So some details that sort of came out. This user research that we did using ethnographies was a tremendous way to understand the entire context for users. All of these ethnographies have been visualized in these pretty little one-pagers and they're all available in the white paper and that alone makes, to me, makes the white paper pretty valuable simply because those specific user stories are wonderful. You hear a lot of stories in e-bookland about kids these days don't wanna read print books or everybody, nobody reads digitally and they're very grandiose broad statements and by having six individual profiles you see the diversity and breadth of use cases and experiences and preferences, which is really valuable when you're trying to solve them. The key findings from that sort of emphasized that diversity but also how much each individual user really owned their processes such that it would be kind of hard for us to change those processes. We have to work within the processes that they have and those processes aren't only digital or print, they span a variety of different media devices, tools. This little, this person here used a napkin midway through the session so that was documented. They're very sophisticated processes. Their preference for print versus digital was strongly held but it wasn't as canonical as I prefer print or I prefer digital so we tracked four different uses of monographs across all the users, mining citation, extracting specific information, close reading and reuse or revisiting a text and each one of those they would have a different preference of print versus digital but then the users were different. Some of them all preferred one and some preferred the other and they would range. They also were forced outside of their preference zone very often by the systems that we all provide them. So using all of that information we presented that to a workshop of some really smart cookies. Vote publishers, librarians, scholars, there was a data visualization expert, data scientists in history, languages across everything. It was a really wonderful and inspiring group and in one day basically in the morning we had, we talked about and learned about the user research and then in the afternoon we did two sketch exercises during which everybody drew, you have 10 minutes to draw eight ideas to reimagine the monograph for things you can do. We shared those and do it again. It's called the design jam and we probably walked away with over 100 different ideas that we could build. We then worked by testing with users in those pencil drawings you saw in the video the different ideas to choose the one to build and we went and built topic graph. So let's see if I can show it to you. This is all live on the labs.jstore site. You can go to it and I should say we did build this in about a month. So it's imperfect. There are things that we want to improve and personally I'd love to hear from each of you what specifically you think we should improve how we can make it better. This began, this currently houses all of the OA books that are in JStore and it's envisioned as a way to quickly understand all of the topics that are covered within a book. One of the rules that we set for ourselves was we wanted to deal with the books as aggregators and publishers have them in the archive. So we're dealing with sort of raw PDFs. We're not expecting a big investment per book to get highly tagged EPUB or anything like that because we wanted to be able to scale this to include to deal with a large corpus of content. The little connection here is a little teensy slow so happily I've reloaded it. The way this works is this topic graph and I'll tell you a little bit about topic modeling in a second. You can click on every page within it, theoretically. Maybe we'll do it here. And it will bring up the page with the highlighting of all of the terms associated with the topic highlighted in the relevant color and it'll load in a second once the internet's caught up. So let me step back a little bit and this is not a technical talk by any stretch but the idea behind topic modeling is it's a digital humanities tool that looks for, that's machine intelligence that looks for clusters of terms within texts that appear together frequently enough that you can have a guess that they mean a particular thing and JSTOR has been working on a topic graph for a topic model based on its corpus of scholarship and the highlighting isn't coming through right now, unfortunately. So you can see what those terms are here. So for the publishing industry, all of the terms, you know, publisher and book and sell and sold and best seller are highlighted in the interface as you browse through and the same thing for bourgeois, it's just different topics, different terms that describe that topic. Okay, oh, they're there. Now you can see the highlighting and so you'd see that on every page, all of the terms related. What are the goals for this? So users talked about when they're evaluating a monograph or a book to whether or not it's going to be useful to them. They look at five to 20 pages of a book before they download the chapter to download the book and our goal for this project was to find a way to make that process better. Let them look at the right five to 20 pages as opposed to guessing based on chapter name or something like that. Get to those pages faster and be able to see more if that's what they want and that's what we were trying to build. Oh, one last thing. So I mentioned there are 50 or so books within this. We also, because you might not find one in your interest area and you're interested in testing out the topic model, so we built a make your own topic graph. So if you have a PDF of anything, you can upload it and it'll email you a link to that document with the topic model applied to it and the graph next to it. So it's a way to experiment and test it out. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Okay, so what's next for this? I mentioned we're releasing it. The labs team is all about learning. We learn a heck of a lot while we're building these prototypes and we've shared some of that in the white paper but we're gonna continue to learn and some of that comes from user feedback and usage and all of that and I'm interested in what you think. One of the areas that we definitely need to continue to invest and develop and where we need your feedback is the topic model itself. In some cases, and you'll see this if you poke around and look at different books, some books, the topics that come up are really great and interesting and really good and others not as good. They're a little bit wonky or they're a little silly and that often happens because of the training set that we used which is the JSTOR corpus which is not everything ever written. So it's got disciplinary strengths and other things. So we need to learn a little bit better which ones are trustworthy and we can present and are helpful and find ways to hide or minimize, decrease the number of weirdnesses. The other thing I should say is, so this is an idea and I do think in the user testing we have is that it does improve the evaluation but as it is of a monograph before download but I wanna temper that a little bit because as it is now, it's not gonna do that because it's not hitting the user at the point of their problem. The point of their problem is when they're in their catalog system or in JSTOR and trying to decide do I wanna read this book or not, they're not gonna jump over to another website to evaluate it. So for this to be really, if it's deemed valuable for this to actually impact users, it needs to meet the users at the point of their need. So all of that was one of the hundred ideas that came out of this workshop. There's a lot more that was discussed and more things that we could do. So we've tried to document some of that conversation which was a really powerful conversation in a white paper that white paper is available on the lab site. It's available as a draft for comment. We're very interested in making that as valuable as possible. So I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Well, it'll be open for a draft for comment until the end of January. And then we'll take your comments under, take your comments and then revise and publish later in the spring. One big portion, sort of the centerpiece of that white paper is a set of principles that emerged almost organically in the conversation at the workshop around reimagining the monograph based on these user needs. So these are they and I'm not going to walk through them here. And in the white paper, there are pictures and each one is sort of dived into with more detail than is here. I just wanna say that Topograph touches on two or three of these ideas and it's just sort of scratches the surface of a few of them. This is just what we could do in a month. I'm really interested in seeing what we can do looking across all of these. And I think it's especially important. This isn't going, JSTOR isn't the one who can solve all of those. We could Topograph and Evaluation and Discovery is something that's sort of in a JSTOR-like sweet spot. But the community has to do all of these together. There are other things that are not right for JSTOR to fix. And we need to work on together. And so I'd love to have additional partnerships to build things like Topograph or for others to keep building really interesting solutions for reimagined monograph. With that, I'll hand it over to Barbara. All right, thank you, Alex. And now I'm gonna tell you why you're gonna want to partner with Alex and the team. We had such an excellent experience. And this all grew out of JSTOR has been holding a series of 2020 meetings. I don't know if any of you in the room have had the opportunity to have JSTOR come and visit your campus. But 20 years out after JSTOR's founding, they're having these conversations at campuses to find out what's going on, what are the big concerns in libraries and in higher education. And that's really where this idea grew out. If Alex was at that meeting, we were talking a lot about the things that we care a lot about in the Columbia University Libraries. And eBooks came up as a very important topic for us. We've had a long investment, as I mentioned in the video in eBooks. We hired in 2013 an eBook program development librarian for two years. And we were sort of placing a bet that we needed more information about the way in which we are investing our resources. We were buying more and more eBooks. But we were also hearing anecdotally that our users didn't particularly like them. And we were spending a lot of money. And so we said, we need to take a step back here and actually do a deep dive. And so we had a lot of focus groups. Our eBook librarian, Melissa Gertzen, met with faculty, with students all over campus and really had a chance to figure out what people were doing with eBooks. And we found out some really interesting things. They were using eBooks. They weren't reading eBooks. I think that's a really important distinction. And they wanted both. They wanted eBooks for some uses and print books for other uses, which is a tough place for libraries to be when we know that we can't just buy everything in every format. So we learned a lot during that time. And when Jay started talking to us about this project, we saw it as a way to kind of close the loop on some of that user engagement. So one of the things we did is we put a call out after that initial workshop. We put a call out to our PhD students in English, comp lit, and in history. And we asked them, would they come and spend some time with the labs team when they were on campus? And we had a surprisingly good response, I thought. A number of students wanted to come over, sit down with the labs team, look at the prototype, and work through it. And in some of them were users that we had worked with previously. So the idea was, we care about this topic, now we're gonna try to do something about it. And that was a really nice way to continue that user engagement. You also saw in the video that image of the kind of gorilla testing in the Butler Library lobby. That was also really interesting for our users to kind of engage and know that we care about that topic and that we were able to work with them in that way. So I mentioned the eBook librarian. We had, there's a report at the bottom of the screen. But if you just Google eBook program development study, I really recommend this report. I think she did a really great job. So one more point I'll make before we turn it over to our colleagues. And that is that it's very interesting to bring a team like JSTOR Labs into a library to really model a kind of IT culture that's a bit foreign to our libraries, as I think many of you will know. This little agile team that sets out some goals, says they're gonna experiment and fail and do it quickly. And that is not how we work in libraries and IT. And so it was very interesting to have this team come into the Columbia libraries. Some of our IT folks worked with the team and I think it modeled a different way of working. And I don't imagine that our IT department is gonna scrap years of ways of doing things and take on this kind of approach. But it does model in small ways how we can begin to do projects. And I think it was so nice to be able to iterate on it and work with the users and be responsive so quickly. I think this is a lesson to us as we think about ways to structure IT culture in our libraries. So with that, we'll turn it over to our colleagues. Thank you. So while we're getting set up, I will give you a little preface. One is that we don't have anything quite so as exciting as a video. But we're also gonna change perspective a little bit in that we're gonna move really from focusing on the readers, not that they are not unimportant, I think the work that's being done at JSTOR Labs is definitely important to all of us who have e-book collections, certainly recognize that. But we're gonna move a little further upstream, if you will, and really focus on some of the needs of authors and really focus on really how we can support authors with new tools around what we've kind of framed as long-form scholarship. So it's the monograph, but it's the monograph as it moves into the digital age. And so, uh-oh. The slides have gone awry. Are they the right ones? Yeah, they're the right ones. I could just say transfer pretty much. Yeah, so all right, well, I will tell you what was on the slides, apologies for that. So there were two Melon grants. One was at Emory University, one at Michigan and Indiana, and both were really looking at the question of kind of the future of the monograph, if you will, moving into the digital era. And the different perspectives were that Michigan and Indiana both have presses. Emory University does not. We have not had a press. And as you can imagine, we do have a lot of authors who do publish monographs on a regular basis. Something we're definitely very vested in. And in both cases, we ended up recommending that we really look to the future to having open access distribution of monographs and also really look at institutional subventions for monographs, so that we can provide some equity, if you will, in the system. Emory not having a press would be considered kind of a free rider, if you will, in the university press system. So part of this is really looking at building a whole new set of tools as we're moving into a digital realm where you may have a long form scholarship, but you're not necessarily talking about something that's based in text. It may be something that's multimodal that really can't even be replicated in a textual monograph that could be represented as an EPUB or an ebook or PDF. And with that, I will turn it over to Charles to talk about some of the work at Michigan. Yeah, so the work of Michigan is sort of focused on the idea of, sort of narrowly focused on the idea of building a new platform for the presentation of the long form scholarship that we publish. And it's under the name of Fulcrum. And this is a hydrophedora based, it's a hydra haired over a fedora repository. It's sort of built on the same infrastructure as our data repository, et cetera. So there's lots of, there's some technological innovation there which is interesting. But what's far more interesting to me is the way in which the idea of platform is something that's much more encompassing around the idea of policies, processes, as well as technology. And this is where the sort of linkage between the Fulcrum project and the project that Lisa is leading, which she's going to talk a little bit more about, really comes into focus. So if we could just forward Lisa. So currently the main type of publishing of sort of different forms of material that we're doing is pretty straight sort of facsimiles of print in e-book form. And this is an example of one of the open access books that we've published this year. In fact, 15% of our list of monographs in 2016 have been published open access through Knowledge Unlatched, through Institutional Subvention, things like that. And in fact, on the JSTOR labs site, you will find 13 of the 50 University of Michigan Press books. So this is what we're sort of doing at the moment. This is a book where you can read for free online. You can buy downloadable versions for Kindle, et cetera. When you read for free on the web, you're actually going to DLXS, which is an old Michigan build platform from over 15 years ago now, which is pretty robust, but it's a fairly flat presentation. But when we start to do contracts with authors with this sort of book in mind, suddenly we start to run into a number of issues around the way our contracts are currently formulated and the realities of an open access environment. So if we could move forward. Fulcrum, as we develop it, is really sort of, it's going to allow us to render these simpler e-books better. But it's really preparing us and the publishers that we're working with for a place where text is not the primary artifact in one of these long form publications. This is a platform optimized for multimedia, for video, audio images, but really increasingly things like 3D visualizations, GIS, things like that, and helping to integrate those in an environment where the key values are the flexibility of Hydra, so the ability to take and give back to the community on various apps that can play things, the durability of the fact that it's built on an institutional repository infrastructure which itself feeds down into things like AP Trust. So really good preservation standards and the discoverability and the fact that it's standards-based and interact with all the major abstractors and indexes. So moving forward, this is the first project on Fulcrum which will really sort of demonstrate this new style of publication. This is a project, the Mid-Republican House from Gabbiee, which is an archeological excavation report. It's the report on a project that was excavated digitally from the very start, so using a lot of digital tools. And one of the primary tools this group used was spatial visualization to try and really give a sense of the excavation as it was happening and allow people to sort of strip away layers and build up the house that they're publishing in this volume. So it has a 3D element coming from the Unity 3D software gaming engine. It has the data set and it has the general narrative that's more familiar. So we don't have a nice video, but we do have, slightly older technology, a lenticular car that you can reconstruct the house with. So they're down at the front if you want them. And also it's an information about Fulcrum. But just to say that this type of publication presents even more in the way of challenges to our contracts and to the various bits of paperwork we have around rights and permissions and roles and responsibilities and all of that stuff. And so one of the things we rapidly realized working on publications like this is that we needed new tools that went beyond technology to really capture all these elements of the author-publisher relationship. And that's what I'll hand over to Lisa for. So as Charles mentioned, really digital publications challenge all of us in a host of ways. They challenge the notion of authorship because seldom is one person really the sole creator of a work like Gabby E. There are often projects that involve a whole host of people with a whole different set of skills. So how do we give credit to those? Kind of who owns what within that? Sometimes these sorts of projects can be very expensive. So how do you kind of plan for that financially? How do you account for that? How do institutional subventions perhaps play into that scenario? How are these things discovered and acquired by libraries? Just because something is open access we all know too well. It doesn't mean that it's automatically in the hands of the people who want it and need it. And then preservation is a really key role here. One of the things I personally think is exciting about the Fulcrum project is it is kind of combining those two aspects of publishing something and also preserving it in a repository. And then versioning is also an issue that comes up. All of us have had the experience of writing something and then coming back to it several months later and thinking, oh, I could have done this or that so much better. And in a print world, once you produce that physical print artifact, you kind of understand it's done. But in a digital world, being done can have an entirely different sort of meaning and connotation. So it's kind of those sets of considerations that really led us to look at a new publishing contract because the current book contracts being used really do not address the questions of institutional subventions. They don't really kind of address some of the aspects of really long form scholarship and they really don't always address open access. So thanks to generous support from the Andrew Mellon Foundation, we had a process by which to really develop what we're calling a model publishing contract. And I will say that is model as an example, not model as in perfect. And so we had a meeting of really a lot of committed folks. They spent literally a day and a half at Emory in the spring talking about contracts. And it really was a much more interesting discussion than what you might think. And it included folks from the University of Michigan, University of Georgia Press, University of Minnesota Press. There were some lawyers in the room, some lawyer librarians in the room. And we really kind of talked through what didn't work with current book contracts and then where we kind of wanted to go. From that we hired an attorney because this really is a contract intended to be adopted by anyone who wants to adopt it so it's not belonging to any particular press. And we have now launched a website which I'll tell you more about with a final draft and we're really looking for public comment from folks. So to delve a little bit more into it, the traditional book contract that we know really deals with kind of the things that you would expect of author delivering a manuscript that will be published on X timeline. And that's perfectly fine. We're not suggesting that that is not a perfectly good way of producing print books but once you've kind of moved into a digital realm where you're talking about open access and Creative Commons licenses, the current contracts don't really accomplish what you really need to do. So what we were looking for as goals was really to have this be kind of a fundamental building block in this transition if you will to publishing digital long form scholarship. It is being released with a Creative Commons zero license that is intentional while the focus has really been on the work of university presses. We think that there is definite utility within digital scholarship centers that are doing digital projects that this contract might help. We're also really focused on being more balanced between the author and the publisher. And we've tried to do that in a couple of ways. One is less legalese. Now there's still some legalese I will tell you but there's less legalese than you commonly see in book contracts. It's also shorter. It is essentially a core contract of four pages with a series of schedules that allow us to accomplish several things. So one of those things is we were talking about authorship and ownership and how you properly give credit being one of the challenges kind of in the digital long form scholarship. And one of the ways we've done that is there is a schedule that specifically is for defining what is the work. Because the work is no longer just delivering a manuscript of X number of words. There needs to be taken into account what are the technical requirements for hosting the work. I mean Charles mentioned the various platforms that University of Michigan has but you can imagine a plethora almost of a combination of open source tools being used, GIS being used, et cetera. So we need to basically prompt the author to think these things through and prompt the press to take that into consideration and then put that down on paper so that everyone understands what the expectations are. Preservation and revision is another area that really kind of fall within defining the work. How is the work going to be distributed? Will it have a Creative Commons license? If so, which one? We make that an option. Really identifying who the various contributors are and what their role was in the project. So this I kind of liken to the movie credits that we've all seen and I joke that I have no idea what a key grip is but I know you need one to make a movie because there's always a key grip listed. So we really do wanna give credit to the various folks who work on making these long form scholarship projects successful with the skills that they bring. Versioning was another thing where we wanted to kind of bring clarity in a few different ways. One is as with any publication, the content that's not original to the author needs to be identified. We tried to be a little more flexible there in accommodating for use, things used with Creative Commons licenses. What is the publication schedule and setting correct expectations between both the author and the press around realistically when milestones can be accomplished and what actually constitutes a new version. So the folks at Minnesota with their manifold project are really exploring iterative publishing and they were very helpful in giving input. And what we've put as a default that can be changed within the contract is that a new addition or new version is 30% new content. But of course that could be adjusted depending on circumstances but it is something that particularly as we move into the digital realm we need to be aware of. And then again, financial planning. So who are the other stakeholders? If you're getting an institutional subvention or a subvention that's being provided by a foundation, do they have requirements? Do they want to be listed in the acknowledgments? If so, then the author needs to let the press know that. Revenue sharing and royalties. So the first example that Charles showed of Just Vibrations, which is an open access book that is also published in print and sold. So we wanted to be able to accommodate those kinds of situations where you do have open access distribution but you also have royalties that may be paid back to the author. And so we have ways of accomplishing that as well. And then we also really wanted to clarify the marketing efforts of both the publisher and the author. Authors can be the best advocates for their work. And so this was a way to kind of give the press a chance to show what they're going to be doing with this work and the author to kind of step up to the plate, if you will, and show what they are going to be doing to market their work. I will say, particularly with this financial planning, one of the key pieces of this is the digital monograph costing tool that Nancy Marin and other colleagues have worked on. Also another Mellon funded project. And there is now the tool available on the AAUP website. So we really kind of looked at that as kind of a key essential tool that fed into the model publishing contract and into the greater transition that we've been talking about. So the model publishing contract with two examples, just vibrations being one of the things we use kind of as an example. And then a purely digital monograph that had no print component is the other example. That's available at this website and we're really seeking feedback from folks who are librarians, publishers, technologists to really kind of look through the contract, tell us what works, what doesn't work, language you found helpful, language you found confusing. But through these various projects, I think we have really discovered that the value that humanists place in the long form argument is very much there, is very much valued by humanities authors. And that an evolution to kind of leveraging, if you will, the advantages of digital distribution to be able to do multimodal work. The Gabby E. Project is a primary example of something that could not be done in text in nearly the same way. But we need a whole new set of partnerships and tools to kind of help with this transition, if you will. So we're hoping that the model publishing contract is one of those tools. And so these are the various URLs of the things that we have mentioned. And with that, we're gonna open it up for questions for basically all of us on the panel. So thank you.