Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
390
Posts
390
Users
0
Reactions
38
Views
27/02/2018 9:39 am
Case 22 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together
Clarification for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: the point beginning “Keep the source citation, retrieval date and a…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 9:48 am
Case 22 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together
Method note for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: use “Keep the source citation, retrieval date and a…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 10:51 am
Case 22 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together
Limit of the answer in “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: “Keep the source citation, retrieval date and a…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 11:16 am
Case 22 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together
Summary draft for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: the answer addresses “Keep the source citation, retrieval date and a…”; the related point is “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 11:19 am
Case 22 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together
Correction note for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: retain the wording beginning “Keep the source citation, retrieval date and a…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 12:16 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
A reader asks whether an experimental finding should change their treatment. What is an appropriate response?
Exercise RESEARCH-00385/23: address this question within its stated limits.
27/02/2018 12:18 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
Explain the study’s scope and limitations without recommending a treatment change. Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who can assess the complete context.
27/02/2018 1:09 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
Clarification for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: the point beginning “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 1:39 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
Limit of the answer in “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 1:53 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
Method note for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: use “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 2:02 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
Correction note for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: retain the wording beginning “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…” 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. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 2:39 pm
Case 23 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion
Summary draft for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: the answer addresses “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…”; the related point is “Individual decisions belong with a qualified clinician who…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
27/02/2018 3:39 pm
Case 24 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation
The same abbreviation has different meanings in neighbouring fields. How can an archive prevent confusion?
Exercise RESEARCH-00385/24: address this question within its stated limits.
27/02/2018 3:52 pm
Case 24 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation
Expand it on first use and name the discipline and source context. Add a cross-reference for alternate meanings rather than assuming that every historical article uses the current convention.
27/02/2018 4:47 pm
Case 24 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation
Clarification for “A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation”: the point beginning “Expand it on first use and name the…” 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: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.
Share: