Difference between revisions of "User:Econterms/Lightning talk"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(emphasis) |
(rephrasing) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
* 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 |
||
| ⚫ | |||
* 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 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 |
+ | # somebody with some '''other expertise''' (or technology or skill) that helps to address a particular issue |
: Opportunities are rare if subfield has knowledge & institiutional barriers around it. |
: 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 |
: ===> 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] |
||
| − | * |
+ | * 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 should have |
+ | We need more people and ideas of what a wiki with scientific lit should have. It needs to 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 |
Revision as of 14:14, 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)
- 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
- 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 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 a particular issue
- 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
- 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 should have. It needs to 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