Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
17
Posts
17
Users
0
Reactions
3
Views
Topic starter
15/10/2019 6:56 am
The same abbreviation has different meanings in neighbouring fields. How can an archive prevent confusion?
Record format: question; proposed response; source or method; limitation. Use a dated correction only if the underlying wording or evidence changes. Record RESEARCH-06216.
15/10/2019 8:15 am
Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” 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.
15/10/2019 8:16 am
Expand it on first use and name the discipline and source context. Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every historical article uses the current convention.
15/10/2019 8:51 am
Method note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: use “Expand it on first use and name the…” 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.
15/10/2019 10:04 am
Correction note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: retain the wording beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” 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.
15/10/2019 10:04 am
Limit of the answer in “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: “Expand it on first use and name the…” 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.
15/10/2019 10:18 am
Summary draft for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the answer addresses “Expand it on first use and name the…”; the related point is “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…”. 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.
15/10/2019 11:16 am
Reader check for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: distinguish the discussion point “Expand it on first use and name the…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
15/10/2019 11:46 am
Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
15/10/2019 11:52 am
Method note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: use “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
15/10/2019 12:58 pm
Limit of the answer in “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
15/10/2019 1:15 pm
Correction note for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: retain the wording beginning “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” 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.
15/10/2019 1:36 pm
Summary draft for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the answer addresses “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…”; the related point is “Expand it on first use and name the…”. 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.
15/10/2019 1:38 pm
Reader check for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: distinguish the discussion point “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
15/10/2019 2:58 pm
Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
Page 1 / 2
Next
Share: