Notifications
Clear all
Lab work & testing
385
Posts
385
Users
0
Reactions
36
Views
Topic starter
20/02/2021 11:07 am
Research reading room: a notebook of numbered synthetic discussion exercises. Each case has a question followed by up to six distinct responses.
The source question bank is finite. Later passes revisit a question with a named review focus, using short excerpts to examine scope, method, limitations or a summary. A new case number marks a separate exercise, not a new real event or a claim of historical community activity.
20/02/2021 12:37 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?
Exercise RESEARCH-11028/1: address this question within its stated limits.
20/02/2021 12:56 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale where the paper provides them. Statistical significance alone does not establish practical or clinical importance.
20/02/2021 1:24 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
Method note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: use “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 1:24 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
Clarification for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the point beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 2:40 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
Limit of the answer in “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 2:52 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
Correction note for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: retain the wording beginning “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 3:20 pm
Case 1 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly
Summary draft for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: the answer addresses “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…”; the related point is “Statistical significance alone does not establish…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 4:00 pm
Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article
A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?
Exercise RESEARCH-11028/2: address this question within its stated limits.
20/02/2021 4:08 pm
Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article
Identify the original error and the corrected text, date the correction and link the source. Keep the correction visible to readers who may have saved or cited the earlier version.
20/02/2021 5:02 pm
Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article
Method note for “A correction log for an archive article”: use “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 5:07 pm
Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article
Clarification for “A correction log for an archive article”: the point beginning “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 5:27 pm
Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article
Limit of the answer in “A correction log for an archive article”: “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 5:56 pm
Case 2 — A correction log for an archive article
Correction note for “A correction log for an archive article”: retain the wording beginning “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
20/02/2021 6:55 pm
Case 3 — Animal evidence and the limits of translation
An animal experiment is cited as though it establishes a human outcome. What qualification is required?
Exercise RESEARCH-11028/3: address this question within its stated limits.
Page 1 / 26
Next
Share: