Difference between revisions of "User:Econterms/Lightning talk"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(brevity) |
(organized) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes = |
= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes = |
||
* Prof. Yang tells Lane and me that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant. |
* Prof. Yang tells Lane and me that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant. |
||
| − | * We are imagining a wiki platform that made the state of |
+ | * We are imagining a wiki platform that made the state of research in a science more clear. |
* Here's a feature it could have. |
* Here's a feature it could have. |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
# students of this research or |
# students of this research or |
||
# researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?) |
# researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?) |
||
| − | # somebody with some '''other expertise''' (or technology or skill) that helps to address the specific question of fact. |
+ | # somebody with some '''other expertise''' (or technology or skill) that helps to address the specific question of fact. |
| + | : Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institiutional barriers around it. |
||
| − | ===> |
+ | : ===> A good site could save time for scientists and bring in more scientists ===> speed science along |
* [http://acawiki.org/Report_on_disputed_scientific_claims_within_AcaWiki Report on disputes between papers on this site] |
* [http://acawiki.org/Report_on_disputed_scientific_claims_within_AcaWiki Report on disputes between papers on this site] |
||
| − | * |
+ | * On such a wiki, who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes? (to be worked out) |
| + | |||
| − | + | We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit should have |
|
Sources: |
Sources: |
||
Revision as of 14:07, 1 June 2014
Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes
- Prof. Yang tells Lane and me that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
- We are imagining a wiki platform that made the state of research in a science more clear.
- Here's a feature it could have.
Examples:
- AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries.
- See first two examples
- Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B (using Semantic MediaWiki)
- Similarly could incorporate other relations between scientific works: A cites B ; A is an important predecessor to B ; A and B use the same data set or the same clinical trial information
- note that the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth
- Could scale this up with big lists of relevant papers and works from many places including PubMed, SSRN, and Wikidata
- The list is not an innovation but the relations between the works can be useful if they are formalized a bit
- Trees of relationships can then be made visible ; could give a picture of a literature
- Useful for:
- students of this research or
- researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?)
- somebody with some other expertise (or technology or skill) that helps to address the specific question of fact.
- Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institiutional barriers around it.
- ===> A good site could save time for scientists and bring in more scientists ===> speed science along
- Report on disputes between papers on this site
- On such a wiki, who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes? (to be worked out)
We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit should have
Sources:
- developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
- drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; other sites