Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
278
Posts
278
Users
0
Reactions
27
Views
19/10/2020 5:19 am
Case 2 — Correlation in a small observational dataset
Summary draft for “Correlation in a small observational dataset”: the answer addresses “Report sample size, potential confounders…”; the related point is “Association does not identify direction or causation, and…”. 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.
19/10/2020 6:04 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Clarification for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: the point beginning “Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion…” 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.
19/10/2020 6:14 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion explicitly and retain the original values. Do not compare apparent visual distances across incompatible scales.
19/10/2020 7:05 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Method note for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: use “Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion…” 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.
19/10/2020 7:46 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Limit of the answer in “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: “Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion…” 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.
19/10/2020 7:55 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Summary draft for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: the answer addresses “Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion…”; the related point is “Do not compare apparent visual distances…”. 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.
19/10/2020 8:00 am
Case 3 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error
Correction note for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: retain the wording beginning “Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion…” 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.
19/10/2020 8:22 am
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
A strong abstract conclusion is being discussed without the study methods. What should the reading note cover?
Exercise RESEARCH-09822/4: address this question within its stated limits.
19/10/2020 9:42 am
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Identify population, design, comparator, outcome definitions and follow-up. Assess whether the conclusion extends beyond the measurements and note what cannot be learned from the abstract alone.
19/10/2020 9:57 am
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Clarification for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: the point beginning “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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.
19/10/2020 9:59 am
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Method note for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: use “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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.
19/10/2020 10:34 am
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Limit of the answer in “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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.
19/10/2020 11:49 am
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Correction note for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: retain the wording beginning “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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.
19/10/2020 12:01 pm
Case 4 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods
Summary draft for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: the answer addresses “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…”; the related point is “Assess whether the conclusion extends beyond the measurements and note what…”. 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.
19/10/2020 12:36 pm
Case 5 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication
A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?
Exercise RESEARCH-09822/5: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: