Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
346
Posts
346
Users
0
Reactions
18
Views
17/02/2018 1:06 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
A review cites another review for a claim about an experiment. How can the evidence chain be checked?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-00256/48: address this question within its stated limits.
17/02/2018 1:26 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
Clarification for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the point beginning “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
17/02/2018 2:04 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
Method note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: use “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
17/02/2018 2:38 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
17/02/2018 3:17 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: the answer addresses “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…”; the related point is “Locate the primary study and confirm that it…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
17/02/2018 3:37 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
Correction note for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: retain the wording beginning “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
17/02/2018 4:21 am
Case 48 — Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources · source wording exercise
Reader check for “Reference management: distinguish primary and secondary sources”: distinguish the discussion point “Record when only a secondary account was accessible and…” 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
17/02/2018 4:49 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
A collection of forum reports is being treated as a representative sample. What limitations belong in the note?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-00256/49: address this question within its stated limits.
17/02/2018 5:20 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
Method note for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: use “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
17/02/2018 5:44 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
Clarification for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the point beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
17/02/2018 6:37 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
Limit of the answer in “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
17/02/2018 6:57 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
Correction note for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: retain the wording beginning “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
17/02/2018 7:08 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
Summary draft for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: the answer addresses “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…”; the related point is “Such material can suggest questions but…”. 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.
17/02/2018 7:48 am
Case 49 — Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample · comparison exercise
Reader check for “Selection bias in a self-reported forum sample”: distinguish the discussion point “Discuss who chose to post, missing outcomes, unverifiable records…” 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.
17/02/2018 8:09 am
Case 50 — An evidence table with room for negative findings · comparison exercise
How can a reading table avoid highlighting only positive outcomes?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Include all prespecified outcomes where reported, null…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-00256/50: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: