Notifications
Clear all
Reading the evidence
370
Posts
370
Users
0
Reactions
19
Views
10/09/2020 4:00 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
A protocol summary omits conditions and controls. What makes the account reproducible?
Review focus: source wording. Retain the source wording beside any paraphrase. Use the original answer fragment “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” as the discussion anchor; no new event or result is supplied.
Exercise RESEARCH-09372/48: address this question within its stated limits.
10/09/2020 4:07 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Clarification for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the point beginning “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
10/09/2020 4:42 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Method note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: use “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
10/09/2020 4:54 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Limit of the answer in “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
10/09/2020 5:29 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Correction note for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: retain the wording beginning “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
10/09/2020 6:10 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Summary draft for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: the answer addresses “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…”; the related point is “List materials, measurement conditions, controls and exclusions with enough…”. 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.
10/09/2020 6:55 am
Case 49 — 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-09372/49: address this question within its stated limits.
10/09/2020 7:00 am
Case 48 — Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion · source wording exercise
Reader check for “Reproducibility checklist for a bench-method discussion”: distinguish the discussion point “Keep this as research documentation and do not turn…” 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.
10/09/2020 7:38 am
Case 49 — 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.
10/09/2020 8:19 am
Case 49 — 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.
10/09/2020 8:39 am
Case 49 — 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.
10/09/2020 9:14 am
Case 49 — 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.
10/09/2020 9:38 am
Case 49 — 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.
10/09/2020 10:26 am
Case 49 — 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.
10/09/2020 11:04 am
Case 50 — 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-09372/50: address this question within its stated limits.
Share: