Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
391
Posts
391
Users
0
Reactions
48
Views
30/09/2018 1:49 am
Case 47 — Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured · source wording exercise
Reader check for “Research figure captions: tell the reader what was measured”: distinguish the discussion point “Interpretive discussion belongs alongside the evidence, not…” 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.
30/09/2018 2:44 am
Case 48 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording exercise
Clarification for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: the point beginning “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” 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.
30/09/2018 2:56 am
Case 48 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording exercise
Method note for “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: use “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” 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.
30/09/2018 3:39 am
Case 48 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together”: “Make synthetic examples explicit and never combine them…” 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.
30/09/2018 4:02 am
Case 48 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording 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. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
30/09/2018 5:06 am
Case 48 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
30/09/2018 5:10 am
Case 48 — Data provenance: keep source, transformation and output together · source wording 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: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase.
30/09/2018 5:13 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
A reader asks whether an experimental finding should change their treatment. What is an appropriate response?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-02447/49: address this question within its stated limits.
30/09/2018 6:29 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
30/09/2018 6:43 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
30/09/2018 7:11 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
30/09/2018 7:27 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
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. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
30/09/2018 8:25 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
Reader check for “Clinical questions in an archive discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “Explain the study’s scope and limitations without…” 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.
30/09/2018 8:36 am
Case 49 — Clinical questions in an archive discussion · comparison exercise
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: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it.
30/09/2018 8:49 am
Case 50 — A durable glossary entry for an ambiguous abbreviation · comparison exercise
The same abbreviation has different meanings in neighbouring fields. How can an archive prevent confusion?
Review focus: comparison. Make the basis of a comparison explicit before interpreting it. Use the original answer fragment “Expand it on first use and name the…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-02447/50: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: