Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
1,501
Posts
1501
Users
0
Reactions
226
Views
16/10/2020 1:51 pm
Case 176 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · reader check exercise
Correction note for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: retain the wording beginning “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 2:00 pm
Case 176 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · reader check exercise
Summary draft for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: the answer addresses “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…”; the related point is “Keep the source citation, retrieval date and a…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 2:40 pm
Case 176 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · reader check exercise
Reader check for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: distinguish the discussion point “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 3:21 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
A reader asks whether an experimental finding should change their treatment. What is an appropriate response?
Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise. Use the original answer fragment “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/177: address this question within its stated limits.
16/10/2020 3:41 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
Clarification for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: the point beginning “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 4:38 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
Limit of the answer in “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 4:50 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
Method note for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: use “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 5:44 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
Correction note for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: retain the wording beginning “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 6:13 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
Summary draft for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: the answer addresses “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…”; the related point is “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 6:31 pm
Case 178 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · reader check exercise
The same abbreviation has different meanings in neighbouring fields. How can an archive prevent confusion?
Review focus: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise. Use the original answer fragment “Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09543/178: address this question within its stated limits.
16/10/2020 6:35 pm
Case 177 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · reader check exercise
Reader check for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…” 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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 7:34 pm
Case 178 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · reader check exercise
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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 8:09 pm
Case 178 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · reader check exercise
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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 8:28 pm
Case 178 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · reader check exercise
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: reader check. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
16/10/2020 8:49 pm
Case 178 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · reader check exercise
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. State what a new reader can and cannot infer from this exercise.
Share: