Difference between revisions of "User:Econterms/Lightning talk"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(brevity) |
(this was from 2014) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | I presented this lightning talk at WikiConference USA 2014. |
||
= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes = |
= Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes = |
||
| − | * Prof. Yang tells |
+ | * Prof. Yang tells us that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant. |
| − | * |
+ | * Let's imagine 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. |
||
Examples: |
Examples: |
||
* [http://acawiki.org/Does_High_Public_Debt_Consistently_Stifle_Economic_Growth%3F_A_Critique_of_Reinhart_and_Rogoff On how much government debt stifles economic growth] |
* [http://acawiki.org/Does_High_Public_Debt_Consistently_Stifle_Economic_Growth%3F_A_Critique_of_Reinhart_and_Rogoff On how much government debt stifles economic growth] |
||
| − | * [http://acawiki.org/A_diffusible_lymphokine_produced_by_CD8%2B_T_lymphocytes Claim about immune response to HIV] |
+ | * [http://acawiki.org/A_diffusible_lymphokine_produced_by_CD8%2B_T_lymphocytes Claim about immune response to HIV] ; [http://acawiki.org/Efficient_lysis_of_human_immunodeficiency_virus_type_1-infected_cells_by_cytotoxic_T_lymphocytes Later paper with different view] |
| − | * AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries. |
+ | * AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries. Our prototype is there. |
* See first two examples |
* See first two examples |
||
* Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B (using Semantic MediaWiki) |
* 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 |
+ | * 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 ; A '''reproduced''' or '''could not reproduce''' result from B |
| ⚫ | |||
* Could '''scale this up''' with big lists of relevant papers and works from many places including PubMed, SSRN, and Wikidata |
* 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 |
: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''' |
+ | * Trees of relationships can then be made visible ; could give a '''picture of a dynamic literature''' across fields, journals, and languages |
| − | * |
+ | * Could be useful for: |
| − | # students of this research |
+ | # students of this research . . . and . . . |
| − | # 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?) . . . and . . . |
| + | # grant-givers (?) . . . and . . . |
||
| − | # somebody with some '''other expertise''' (or technology or skill) that helps to address |
+ | # somebody with some '''other expertise''' (or technology or skill) that helps to address a particular issue |
| ⚫ | |||
| + | : Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institutional barriers around it. |
||
| ⚫ | |||
* [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] |
||
| − | * |
+ | * issue: who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes on such a wiki? (to be worked out) |
| + | |||
| − | * would like to work with more people and get more ideas of what a platform like that should have in it |
||
| + | We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit could have that would help spark critical mass (fun, addictive?) |
||
Sources: |
Sources: |
||
* developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others |
* developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others |
||
| − | * drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; other sites |
+ | * drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; many other sites |
Latest revision as of 04:14, 2 August 2015
I presented this lightning talk at WikiConference USA 2014.
Tracking relations between scientific works, such as disputes
- Prof. Yang tells us that students have trouble interpreting a dynamic immunology literature which includes published papers whose findings are wrong or irrelevant.
- Let's imagine a wiki platform that made the state of research in a science more clear.
- Here's a feature it could have.
Examples:
- On how much government debt stifles economic growth
- Claim about immune response to HIV ; Later paper with different view
- AcaWiki has 1100 academic summaries. Our prototype is there.
- See first two examples
- Substantive comment is formalized: A disputes B (using Semantic MediaWiki)
- note: the platform doesn't generally resolve claims or disputes ; it's finding a shallower kind of Truth -- that a dispute exists
- 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 ; A reproduced or could not reproduce result from B
- 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 dynamic literature across fields, journals, and languages
- Could be useful for:
- students of this research . . . and . . .
- researchers not at a "central" place that is well-connected to the latest news (global South?) . . . and . . .
- grant-givers (?) . . . and . . .
- somebody with some other expertise (or technology or skill) that helps to address a particular issue
- Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institutional 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
- issue: who is qualified to make commentary & identify disputes on such a wiki? (to be worked out)
We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit could have that would help spark critical mass (fun, addictive?)
Sources:
- developed with Lane Rasberry (WM NYC), Otto Yang (UCLA medicine), others
- drawing from Yaron Koren's discoursedb.org ; Retraction Watch blog; many other sites