Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
364
Posts
364
Users
0
Reactions
31
Views
22/02/2018 11:03 am
Case 50 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
Clarification for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the point beginning “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 11:22 am
Case 50 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
Limit of the answer in “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 11:23 am
Case 50 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
Method note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: use “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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 basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 12:10 pm
Case 50 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
Correction note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: retain the wording beginning “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…” 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 basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 12:36 pm
Case 50 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison exercise
Summary draft for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the answer addresses “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…”; the related point is “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 1:25 pm
Case 50 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · comparison 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 1:41 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 1:56 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison exercise
A result is described only as statistically significant. What information is missing?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. 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-00298/51: address this question within its stated limits.
22/02/2018 2:17 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison 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 basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 3:26 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 4:06 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison 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 basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 4:24 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 4:30 pm
Case 51 — Confidence intervals: describe uncertainty explicitly · comparison 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 5:16 pm
Case 52 — A correction log for an archive article · comparison 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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
22/02/2018 5:28 pm
Case 52 — A correction log for an archive article · comparison exercise
A transcription error changes the units in a figure caption. How should the archive record be repaired?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. 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-00298/52: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: