Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
1,501
Posts
1501
Users
0
Reactions
17
Views
15/10/2020 12:57 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?
Review focus: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score. Use the original answer fragment “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/166: address this question within its stated limits.
15/10/2020 12:59 am
Case 165 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · indexing exercise
Reader check for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 1:02 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 2:09 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
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. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 2:29 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 3:21 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
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. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 3:40 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 3:54 am
Case 166 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · indexing exercise
Reader check for “Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly”: distinguish the discussion point “Report effect size, confidence interval and the outcome scale…” 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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 4:42 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?
Review focus: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score. Use the original answer fragment “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/167: address this question within its stated limits.
15/10/2020 5:29 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 5:41 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
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. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 6:11 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 6:54 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
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. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 7:29 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
Summary draft for “A correction log for an archive article”: the answer addresses “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…”; the related point is “Keep the correction visible to readers who may have…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
15/10/2020 7:55 am
Case 167 — A correction log for an archive article · indexing exercise
Reader check for “A correction log for an archive article”: distinguish the discussion point “Identify the original error and the corrected text, date…” 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: indexing. Make the reasoning findable without reducing it to a trust score.
Share: