Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
1,501
Posts
1501
Users
0
Reactions
242
Views
07/10/2020 12:38 pm
Case 114 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error · uncertainty exercise
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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 1:11 pm
Case 114 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error · uncertainty exercise
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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 1:23 pm
Case 114 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error · uncertainty exercise
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. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 1:52 pm
Case 114 — Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error · uncertainty exercise
Reader check for “Units and scale: prevent a silent comparison error”: distinguish the discussion point “Record the original units and axis transformation, show any conversion…” 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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 2:41 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
A strong abstract conclusion is being discussed without the study methods. What should the reading note cover?
Review focus: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result. Use the original answer fragment “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/115: address this question within its stated limits.
07/10/2020 3:10 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 3:21 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
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. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 4:07 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 4:08 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
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. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 5:12 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
Reader check for “Reading an abstract without skipping the methods”: distinguish the discussion point “Identify population, design, comparator, outcome…” 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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 5:26 pm
Case 115 — Reading an abstract without skipping the methods · uncertainty exercise
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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 5:52 pm
Case 116 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · uncertainty exercise
A cited preprint has a later published version. How should an archive entry handle the relationship?
Review focus: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result. Use the original answer fragment “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/116: address this question within its stated limits.
07/10/2020 6:50 pm
Case 116 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · uncertainty exercise
Clarification for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: the point beginning “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 7:00 pm
Case 116 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · uncertainty exercise
Method note for “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: use “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
07/10/2020 7:32 pm
Case 116 — Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication · uncertainty exercise
Limit of the answer in “Preprint versus peer-reviewed publication”: “Link both versions, record dates and check whether…” 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: uncertainty. Leave the unresolved part visible instead of supplying a result.
Share: